YOU CALL THIS GOOD NEWS?
That's what Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo calls it, but I'd say it's barely that, at best. From Gallup:
George W. Bush may do as much damage to John McCain's chances of being elected as Jeremiah Wright does to Barack Obama's, according to results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
The May 1-3 poll finds 38% of likely voters saying McCain's association with Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain, while 33% say Obama's association with Wright diminishes their likelihood of voting for Obama. The Bush-McCain relationship does have more upside than the Obama-Wright association, though, as 7% say they are more likely to vote for McCain because of his association with Bush, while only 1% say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of his association with Wright.
OK, let's review: Yes, Jeremiah Wright was very close to Obama, but Obama has rejected every one of Wright's most divisive, controversial ideas, and he did so long before those ideas became the subject of widespread public debate. John McCain, by contrast, has embraced virtually every one of George W. Bush's most divisive, most unpopular ideas. What's more, Obama has now dissociated himself from Wright, while McCain went to the White House to accept Bush's endorsement and invite him to do some campaigning
And yet the net effect of the ongoing Bush connection is slightly less damaging for McCain (38% - 7% = 31%) than the net effect of the former Wright connection is for Obama (33% - 1% = 32%).
It's possible that the Wright controversy has played itself out, and further attacks on Obama's ties to him may have diminishing impact, with the result that this number will go down. Let's hope. Also, someday -- presumably -- Obama and the Democratic Party will be able to turn their undivided attention to McCain; when (if?) that day comes, the Bush-as-millstone numbers ought to go up. But for now, this is not great news.
Monday, May 12, 2008
ELECTORAL VICTORY BY A THOUSAND CUTS
When I started to read this New York Times article about a proposed new voter ID law in Missouri, my first thought was "Surely we'll just have to have national ID cards eventually" -- a possibility hinted at in the article. And then I realized that's never going to happen.
Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship
The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote....
In most of the states that require identification, voters can use utility bills, paychecks, driver’s licenses or student or military ID cards to prove their identity....
Measures requiring proof of citizenship raise the bar higher because they offer fewer options for documentation. In most cases, aspiring voters would have to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport....
Here's a quote from a policy wonk who (naively) raises the possibility of an eventual end to this battle:
"Three forces are converging on the issue: security, immigration and election verification," said Dr. Robert A. Pastor, co-director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University in Washington....
"Whether the U.S. government combines these different initiatives into a coherent plan with safeguards for privacy instead of dozens of separate ID cards that could be the source of discrimination and confusion is the question," he said.
But the point of this isn't to solve the (real or imagined) problem of voter fraud. The point is to win a bit of what Republicans want in every successful battle (in this case, disenfranchising a certain number of likely Democratic voters), but also to keep the issue alive forever, as a source for future GOP fund-raising appeals and the subject of future conservative-turnout-increasing referenda.
That's how the GOP works -- nothing is ever enough. After every Republican tax increase, good people, we're told, are still overtaxed. (Republicans say government is always evil, but won't openly try to essentially abolish it in a Ron Paul way.) After every new law restricting abortion rights, abortion, we're told, is still the great evil of our time. (Republicans won't really fight to ban all abortions nationwide, and even though a McCain Supreme Court would overturn Roe, Republicans insist they'll accept the fact that some states will keep abortions legal.)
And now we see the pattern with alleged voter fraud: the old-style voter-ID laws aren't enough, so we need even tougher ID laws. And when those pass, we'll need something else.
And yet Republicans will never, ever accept a national ID card. That would be fascist.
That would also curtail their ability to keep "voter fraud" a hot-button issue forever. That's what they want, just as they want taxes and abortion to be hot-button issues forever.
So, yes, this Missouri referendum is bad. But there'll be even newer and more inventive ways of exploiting this (non-)issue in the coming years.
When I started to read this New York Times article about a proposed new voter ID law in Missouri, my first thought was "Surely we'll just have to have national ID cards eventually" -- a possibility hinted at in the article. And then I realized that's never going to happen.
Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship
The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote....
In most of the states that require identification, voters can use utility bills, paychecks, driver’s licenses or student or military ID cards to prove their identity....
Measures requiring proof of citizenship raise the bar higher because they offer fewer options for documentation. In most cases, aspiring voters would have to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport....
Here's a quote from a policy wonk who (naively) raises the possibility of an eventual end to this battle:
"Three forces are converging on the issue: security, immigration and election verification," said Dr. Robert A. Pastor, co-director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University in Washington....
"Whether the U.S. government combines these different initiatives into a coherent plan with safeguards for privacy instead of dozens of separate ID cards that could be the source of discrimination and confusion is the question," he said.
But the point of this isn't to solve the (real or imagined) problem of voter fraud. The point is to win a bit of what Republicans want in every successful battle (in this case, disenfranchising a certain number of likely Democratic voters), but also to keep the issue alive forever, as a source for future GOP fund-raising appeals and the subject of future conservative-turnout-increasing referenda.
That's how the GOP works -- nothing is ever enough. After every Republican tax increase, good people, we're told, are still overtaxed. (Republicans say government is always evil, but won't openly try to essentially abolish it in a Ron Paul way.) After every new law restricting abortion rights, abortion, we're told, is still the great evil of our time. (Republicans won't really fight to ban all abortions nationwide, and even though a McCain Supreme Court would overturn Roe, Republicans insist they'll accept the fact that some states will keep abortions legal.)
And now we see the pattern with alleged voter fraud: the old-style voter-ID laws aren't enough, so we need even tougher ID laws. And when those pass, we'll need something else.
And yet Republicans will never, ever accept a national ID card. That would be fascist.
That would also curtail their ability to keep "voter fraud" a hot-button issue forever. That's what they want, just as they want taxes and abortion to be hot-button issues forever.
So, yes, this Missouri referendum is bad. But there'll be even newer and more inventive ways of exploiting this (non-)issue in the coming years.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
"THEY'RE YOUNG, FIT, GOP, AND NOT IN IRAQ"
If you haven't done so already, go read Skimble on the Jenna Bush/Henry Hager wedding.
If you haven't done so already, go read Skimble on the Jenna Bush/Henry Hager wedding.
LAURA AND JENNA BUSH: AGENTS OF SATAN?
I first saw this story a couple of days ago via TBogg, and today Steve Benen wrote about it. From the Tampa Tribune:
The telephone call that spelled the end of Jim Piculas' career as a substitute teacher in Pasco County came on a January day about a week after he performed the disappearing-toothpick trick for a group of rapt middle school students.
Pat Sinclair, who oversees substitute teachers in the Pasco County School District, was on the phone. She told Piculas there had been a complaint about his performance at Rushe Middle School in Land O' Lakes....
"She said, 'You've been accused of wizardry,'" Piculas said.
...The trick requires a toothpick and transparent tape. A sleight-of-hand maneuver causes the toothpick to disappear then reappear.
...One student in the Rushe Middle class apparently took the trick the wrong way, Piculas said....
I bring it up because I wonder who's going to be charged with wizardry next.
I'm thinking it really might be Laura and Jenna Bush.
Today there's a review (not a very favorable one) of Read All About It!, their new book for four- to eight-year-olds, in The New York Times. The book is summmarized and, well, this is the part that's deeply disturbing:
...Tyrone Brown, "professional student and class clown," likes a lot about school: math, science, recess. But reading bugs him....
When Tyrone's homeroom teacher, Miss Libro, finally persuades him to pay attention during story hour, he sees a ghost emerge from the pages of a spooky tale; Ben Franklin strolls into the classroom while Miss Libro reads about the founding fathers; a dragon and a pig leap to life when their names are similarly evoked. It's magic time....
When these conjured characters disappear after their stories, Tyrone and his pals go in search of them throughout the school ... until Tyrone, prodded by Miss Libro, boldly goes where he "had never gone before": the library....
What?! This book involves ghosts? And dragons? Characters are conjured?
THESE TWO BUSH WITCHES ARE DESCRIBING THE EVIL ARTS! GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!
I really don't know what's gotten into Laura and Jenna. Obviously, though, they've gone over to the Dark Side.
Please -- ban the Bushes' book from your school library.
Do it for the souls of your children.
I first saw this story a couple of days ago via TBogg, and today Steve Benen wrote about it. From the Tampa Tribune:
The telephone call that spelled the end of Jim Piculas' career as a substitute teacher in Pasco County came on a January day about a week after he performed the disappearing-toothpick trick for a group of rapt middle school students.
Pat Sinclair, who oversees substitute teachers in the Pasco County School District, was on the phone. She told Piculas there had been a complaint about his performance at Rushe Middle School in Land O' Lakes....
"She said, 'You've been accused of wizardry,'" Piculas said.
...The trick requires a toothpick and transparent tape. A sleight-of-hand maneuver causes the toothpick to disappear then reappear.
...One student in the Rushe Middle class apparently took the trick the wrong way, Piculas said....
I bring it up because I wonder who's going to be charged with wizardry next.
I'm thinking it really might be Laura and Jenna Bush.
Today there's a review (not a very favorable one) of Read All About It!, their new book for four- to eight-year-olds, in The New York Times. The book is summmarized and, well, this is the part that's deeply disturbing:
...Tyrone Brown, "professional student and class clown," likes a lot about school: math, science, recess. But reading bugs him....
When Tyrone's homeroom teacher, Miss Libro, finally persuades him to pay attention during story hour, he sees a ghost emerge from the pages of a spooky tale; Ben Franklin strolls into the classroom while Miss Libro reads about the founding fathers; a dragon and a pig leap to life when their names are similarly evoked. It's magic time....
When these conjured characters disappear after their stories, Tyrone and his pals go in search of them throughout the school ... until Tyrone, prodded by Miss Libro, boldly goes where he "had never gone before": the library....
What?! This book involves ghosts? And dragons? Characters are conjured?
THESE TWO BUSH WITCHES ARE DESCRIBING THE EVIL ARTS! GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!
I really don't know what's gotten into Laura and Jenna. Obviously, though, they've gone over to the Dark Side.
Please -- ban the Bushes' book from your school library.
Do it for the souls of your children.
CLINTON: THE WAY TO BEAT McCAIN IS TO KEEP FIGHTING EACH OTHER
Hillary Clinton at a Democratic forum in Kentucky last night:
"The only way we can have a Democrat in that White House come next January is to win in November, and we cannot win unless we can win 270 electoral votes," she said.
Yup -- and you know how a Democrat might actually win those votes? By actually campaigning to beat the Republican. Not by being involved in a slugfest against a fellow Democrat for four more months.
Clinton herself noted she was the only candidate to come, saying it was important "because Kentucky always picks the president."
You know what? A Democrat is not going to win Kentucky this year. Yes, Bill Clinton won the state in 1992 and 1996 -- barely, and with less than 46% of the vote each time in a three-way race. But in 2000 -- when Al Gore actually won the popular vote, and should have won Florida and thus the election -- he lost Kentucky by 15 points, and he was from a state that borders Kentucky. And in 2004, Kerry lost the state by 20 points.
Sorry, Clintonites -- Kentucky isn't coming back to the Democrats. Not anytime soon. To win this year, a Democrat is going to have to do without Kentucky, and no pander is going to change that fact.
Hillary Clinton at a Democratic forum in Kentucky last night:
"The only way we can have a Democrat in that White House come next January is to win in November, and we cannot win unless we can win 270 electoral votes," she said.
Yup -- and you know how a Democrat might actually win those votes? By actually campaigning to beat the Republican. Not by being involved in a slugfest against a fellow Democrat for four more months.
Clinton herself noted she was the only candidate to come, saying it was important "because Kentucky always picks the president."
You know what? A Democrat is not going to win Kentucky this year. Yes, Bill Clinton won the state in 1992 and 1996 -- barely, and with less than 46% of the vote each time in a three-way race. But in 2000 -- when Al Gore actually won the popular vote, and should have won Florida and thus the election -- he lost Kentucky by 15 points, and he was from a state that borders Kentucky. And in 2004, Kerry lost the state by 20 points.
Sorry, Clintonites -- Kentucky isn't coming back to the Democrats. Not anytime soon. To win this year, a Democrat is going to have to do without Kentucky, and no pander is going to change that fact.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO WIN AN ELECTION
If John McCain wins the presidency, it may be possible to mark the precise dates when the balance tipped. The start date, quite possibly, was this past Tuesday, sometime in the evening. The end date is anyone's guess.
On Tuesday night, Barack Obama was the presumptive Democratic nominee. Several polls being conducted on Tuesday would show Obama leading John McCain.
There was an opportunity for Hillary and Bill Clinton to do right by the party, which had made its choice. But Hillary and Bill Clinton think they are the party. So they decided to embarrass Obama by running up the score in two rural states, one of which no Democrat will win and the other a state with a whopping five electoral votes, all the while continuing to reinforce what will certainly be Republican lines of attack on Obama in the fall.
And it's working. Clinton is up by anywhere from 29% to 43% in West Virginia and up by 34% to 36% in Kentucky. Which means that instead of taking a victory lap right now, with a party uniting behind him, he's going to suffer through more weeks of bad press. For days if not weeks after these returns come in, even though he'll still have delegate math on his side, plus a likely win in Oregon, he's going to think his first and middle names are "Doubts" and "About" -- he's going to be a question mark again. After losing two relatively small rural states, he's going to look like a loser again -- and the Clintons will probably put the boot in even more. This is what Democrats will be dealing with rather than trying to build on his current nationwide lead against McCain, which is just about the same as Clinton's lead (and she may be beating McCain only because she's not enduring any GOP attacks whatsoever and is not the target of a scorched-earth campaign from her Democratic opponent).
Yes, Obama's brought a good deal of this on himself -- but the Clintons have exploited every vulnerability. And this is where I ask the Clintons and the hardcore Clintonites: Which side are you on? Do you want a Democrat to win -- or do you only want Clinton to win?
And don't tell me you want Clinton to win only because Obama can't win -- he's winning right now. He's beating McCain. After Wright. And Wright again. And "bitter." And a billion e-mails calling him a Muslim. And he's doing it while fighting off one and (nearly) a half of the two major parties.
Can you imagine how he'd be doing if the Clintons were helping him now? If they actually went into some of these states and said he's a good man and will be a good president? Said he was a friend of working people? Said he's not a madrassa-bred Muslim America-hater?
Yeah, but I hear you say, Doesn't Hillary have the right to stay in the race? (muttering under your breath, "you sexist pig"). Yes, she has the right -- just as I'd have the right to take my paycheck and drink up the rent money if I had kids at home. Just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should do it. Just because you have leeway to screw over people you supposedly care about doesn't mean you should.
But, as I said, the Clintons don't give a damn about the good of the party because they think they are the party. And, sure, they could have been -- about fifteen Obama victories ago. But he became the favorite, and for a long time now we've had two choices: a decision to unify around Obama the front-runner ... or blood on the floor for months, while John McCain gets a free ride.
The Clintons have made their choice. By rubbing Barack Obama's nose in West Virginia and Kentucky dirt, they've chosen to weaken him again for maybe another month, maybe more, even though they still don't have much more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning this nomination.
If we're crying in November, remember the Clintons in May.
*****
Deja vu all over again: Here's an Obama-basher in West Virginia now:
"Obama just doesn't sound right for an American president."
His doppelganger in 1988 -- Miss Loretta Lynn, the country singer:
At one stop, Miss Lynn said Mr. Dukakis was simply not her kind of politician. Thickening her Kentucky drawl, she added: ''Why, I can't even pronounce his name!'' The crowd roared with glee.
Somewhere in hell, Lee Atwater is smiling. A beer and a shot are this year's pork rinds.
*****
Meanwhile, Clintonmania doesn't extend to a somewhat larger state:
California voters would change their February primary vote for Hillary Clinton to a vote for Barack Obama if the vote were held again, according to an exclusive poll commissioned by CBS 5.
While voters in the California Democratic Presidential Primary backed Clinton by a 10-point margin, a new SurveyUSA poll shows that if given the chance to vote again, Californians would choose Barack Obama by a 6-point margin, 49%-43%....
California, by the way, has as many electoral votes as eleven West Virginias.
If John McCain wins the presidency, it may be possible to mark the precise dates when the balance tipped. The start date, quite possibly, was this past Tuesday, sometime in the evening. The end date is anyone's guess.
On Tuesday night, Barack Obama was the presumptive Democratic nominee. Several polls being conducted on Tuesday would show Obama leading John McCain.
There was an opportunity for Hillary and Bill Clinton to do right by the party, which had made its choice. But Hillary and Bill Clinton think they are the party. So they decided to embarrass Obama by running up the score in two rural states, one of which no Democrat will win and the other a state with a whopping five electoral votes, all the while continuing to reinforce what will certainly be Republican lines of attack on Obama in the fall.
And it's working. Clinton is up by anywhere from 29% to 43% in West Virginia and up by 34% to 36% in Kentucky. Which means that instead of taking a victory lap right now, with a party uniting behind him, he's going to suffer through more weeks of bad press. For days if not weeks after these returns come in, even though he'll still have delegate math on his side, plus a likely win in Oregon, he's going to think his first and middle names are "Doubts" and "About" -- he's going to be a question mark again. After losing two relatively small rural states, he's going to look like a loser again -- and the Clintons will probably put the boot in even more. This is what Democrats will be dealing with rather than trying to build on his current nationwide lead against McCain, which is just about the same as Clinton's lead (and she may be beating McCain only because she's not enduring any GOP attacks whatsoever and is not the target of a scorched-earth campaign from her Democratic opponent).
Yes, Obama's brought a good deal of this on himself -- but the Clintons have exploited every vulnerability. And this is where I ask the Clintons and the hardcore Clintonites: Which side are you on? Do you want a Democrat to win -- or do you only want Clinton to win?
And don't tell me you want Clinton to win only because Obama can't win -- he's winning right now. He's beating McCain. After Wright. And Wright again. And "bitter." And a billion e-mails calling him a Muslim. And he's doing it while fighting off one and (nearly) a half of the two major parties.
Can you imagine how he'd be doing if the Clintons were helping him now? If they actually went into some of these states and said he's a good man and will be a good president? Said he was a friend of working people? Said he's not a madrassa-bred Muslim America-hater?
Yeah, but I hear you say, Doesn't Hillary have the right to stay in the race? (muttering under your breath, "you sexist pig"). Yes, she has the right -- just as I'd have the right to take my paycheck and drink up the rent money if I had kids at home. Just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should do it. Just because you have leeway to screw over people you supposedly care about doesn't mean you should.
But, as I said, the Clintons don't give a damn about the good of the party because they think they are the party. And, sure, they could have been -- about fifteen Obama victories ago. But he became the favorite, and for a long time now we've had two choices: a decision to unify around Obama the front-runner ... or blood on the floor for months, while John McCain gets a free ride.
The Clintons have made their choice. By rubbing Barack Obama's nose in West Virginia and Kentucky dirt, they've chosen to weaken him again for maybe another month, maybe more, even though they still don't have much more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning this nomination.
If we're crying in November, remember the Clintons in May.
*****
Deja vu all over again: Here's an Obama-basher in West Virginia now:
"Obama just doesn't sound right for an American president."
His doppelganger in 1988 -- Miss Loretta Lynn, the country singer:
At one stop, Miss Lynn said Mr. Dukakis was simply not her kind of politician. Thickening her Kentucky drawl, she added: ''Why, I can't even pronounce his name!'' The crowd roared with glee.
Somewhere in hell, Lee Atwater is smiling. A beer and a shot are this year's pork rinds.
*****
Meanwhile, Clintonmania doesn't extend to a somewhat larger state:
California voters would change their February primary vote for Hillary Clinton to a vote for Barack Obama if the vote were held again, according to an exclusive poll commissioned by CBS 5.
While voters in the California Democratic Presidential Primary backed Clinton by a 10-point margin, a new SurveyUSA poll shows that if given the chance to vote again, Californians would choose Barack Obama by a 6-point margin, 49%-43%....
California, by the way, has as many electoral votes as eleven West Virginias.
IF THIS HAPPENED TO CLINTON OR McCAIN
Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic and, apparently, every Obama-bashing blogger in the English-speaking world have preemptively declared a double standard after Obama slipped up and said he'd been to "57 states."
Says Ambinder:
But if John McCain did this -- if he mistakenly said he'd visited 57 states -- the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment. Just saying....
Er, no. Bloggers would be after him. The press wouldn't. But in any event, McCain would immediately book an appearance on Letterman and read a Top Ten List in which the applause would be the greatest for the "57 states" joke. Chris Matthews, watching the Letterman clip, would reenact the cafe scene from When Harry Met Sally, but not faking it. End of mini-crisis.
Obama will start joking about this too. The press will back off. Alas, it won't stop the 87 billion spam e-mails that will be sent between now and November explaining that Obama doesn't know how many states there are because he's a madrassa-bred Muslim who took his oath of office on a Koran.
If this happened to Hillary Clinton, by contrast, she wouldn't joke about it. She'd declare that arugula-eating elitists want to stop the contest before states 51 through 57 get to vote, and she won't let them. Bill, in a one-stoplight town, would say, "Don't you ever let them tell you there are only 50 states in this country," while wagging an index finger and turning beet red. We'd be told that internal polls show Barack Obama is near 0% in the polls in those 7 states -- more evidence that he simply can't win in November. Lanny Davis would be dispatched to every cable news operation and the Huffington Post, where he'd describe "the 50-state myth" as the sinister work of egghead geographers. Howard Dean, Al Gore, the Edwardses, and Nancy Pelosi would ineffectually wring their hands.
Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic and, apparently, every Obama-bashing blogger in the English-speaking world have preemptively declared a double standard after Obama slipped up and said he'd been to "57 states."
Says Ambinder:
But if John McCain did this -- if he mistakenly said he'd visited 57 states -- the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment. Just saying....
Er, no. Bloggers would be after him. The press wouldn't. But in any event, McCain would immediately book an appearance on Letterman and read a Top Ten List in which the applause would be the greatest for the "57 states" joke. Chris Matthews, watching the Letterman clip, would reenact the cafe scene from When Harry Met Sally, but not faking it. End of mini-crisis.
Obama will start joking about this too. The press will back off. Alas, it won't stop the 87 billion spam e-mails that will be sent between now and November explaining that Obama doesn't know how many states there are because he's a madrassa-bred Muslim who took his oath of office on a Koran.
If this happened to Hillary Clinton, by contrast, she wouldn't joke about it. She'd declare that arugula-eating elitists want to stop the contest before states 51 through 57 get to vote, and she won't let them. Bill, in a one-stoplight town, would say, "Don't you ever let them tell you there are only 50 states in this country," while wagging an index finger and turning beet red. We'd be told that internal polls show Barack Obama is near 0% in the polls in those 7 states -- more evidence that he simply can't win in November. Lanny Davis would be dispatched to every cable news operation and the Huffington Post, where he'd describe "the 50-state myth" as the sinister work of egghead geographers. Howard Dean, Al Gore, the Edwardses, and Nancy Pelosi would ineffectually wring their hands.
Friday, May 09, 2008
ON "PSYCHOS" AND GENDERED INSULTS
Yeah, I can see why Big Tent Democrat says it's sexist to recommend a blog post entitled "Hillary Clinton: The Psycho Ex-Girlfriend of the Democratic Party," as Michael D. at Balloon Juice and Oliver Willis have done.
But in a way it's odd, because there are certainly male psycho exes, and they can be a lot scarier. (Hillary, as depicted in the linked post, doesn't actually do anything frightening.) I know I've compared the GOP attack machine to an abusive father (e.g., here), and Bush is occasionally written about this way. (Here's a college opinion columnist calling Bush "the bad boyfriend of American politics"; here's a Huffington Post commenter saying, "Bush is like the abusive boyfriend in our democratic relationship. He gets in barfights with random guys, smacks us around a bit, and then says, 'I only do it because I love you.'")
I'm actually surprised more people don't use the term "bad boyfriend" to describe Bush, the way this woman, writing for The New York Times, uses the term to describe various unreliable, irresponsible, BS-slinging contractors working on her house. No, wait -- I guess I'm not surprised, given the relative dearth of big-league female pundits, and the lack of skepticism about men expressed by two of the most prominent ones (Dowd and Noonan).
I do think there's something delusional about Clinton's persistence, but I think there's something far more delusional about Bush's ability to live with himself, knowing how he's spent the last seven years of his life. In an ideal world, we just could say both of these things, no?
****
...Well, I got slammed for this almost immediately in comments, which I assumed would happen. Aimai has a lot of good points. Go read what she said.
I think what we're seeing from the Clinton campaign is irrational, but it's not gendered -- she's just a powerful person, like a lot of powerful people, who's become a zealot, as have her husband and her many coat-holders of both genders. She -- and they -- just believe the hype about her and Bill. She -- and they -- believes only she can save us from ourselves.
The problem with the "Psycho" post is that it trivializes this, reduces her to a lovestruck girl. She's not that. She's an adult who's lost perspective and who has skills and followers and thus has the power to make a lot of trouble for people who don't share her worldview.
Yeah, I can see why Big Tent Democrat says it's sexist to recommend a blog post entitled "Hillary Clinton: The Psycho Ex-Girlfriend of the Democratic Party," as Michael D. at Balloon Juice and Oliver Willis have done.
But in a way it's odd, because there are certainly male psycho exes, and they can be a lot scarier. (Hillary, as depicted in the linked post, doesn't actually do anything frightening.) I know I've compared the GOP attack machine to an abusive father (e.g., here), and Bush is occasionally written about this way. (Here's a college opinion columnist calling Bush "the bad boyfriend of American politics"; here's a Huffington Post commenter saying, "Bush is like the abusive boyfriend in our democratic relationship. He gets in barfights with random guys, smacks us around a bit, and then says, 'I only do it because I love you.'")
I'm actually surprised more people don't use the term "bad boyfriend" to describe Bush, the way this woman, writing for The New York Times, uses the term to describe various unreliable, irresponsible, BS-slinging contractors working on her house. No, wait -- I guess I'm not surprised, given the relative dearth of big-league female pundits, and the lack of skepticism about men expressed by two of the most prominent ones (Dowd and Noonan).
I do think there's something delusional about Clinton's persistence, but I think there's something far more delusional about Bush's ability to live with himself, knowing how he's spent the last seven years of his life. In an ideal world, we just could say both of these things, no?
****
...Well, I got slammed for this almost immediately in comments, which I assumed would happen. Aimai has a lot of good points. Go read what she said.
I think what we're seeing from the Clinton campaign is irrational, but it's not gendered -- she's just a powerful person, like a lot of powerful people, who's become a zealot, as have her husband and her many coat-holders of both genders. She -- and they -- just believe the hype about her and Bill. She -- and they -- believes only she can save us from ourselves.
The problem with the "Psycho" post is that it trivializes this, reduces her to a lovestruck girl. She's not that. She's an adult who's lost perspective and who has skills and followers and thus has the power to make a lot of trouble for people who don't share her worldview.
WHEN ROVE GETS LARYNGITIS, JUAN WILLIAMS LOSES HIS VOICE
Steve Benen, Marc Ambinder, and Media Matters are linking a Fox News clip from Wednesday in which Juan Williams says,
You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there's John McCain, working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn't have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post-partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn't have the record.
Ambinder's gloss on this:
You can bet that a big McCain talking point in the fall will be almost exactly as phrased ... by Juan Williams.
Er, Marc -- it was already phrased almost exactly this way -- by Karl Rove, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in February:
Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.
Juan Williams: Yes, that is Karl Rove's hand up his back, and those are Rove's hands moving his lips.
Steve Benen, Marc Ambinder, and Media Matters are linking a Fox News clip from Wednesday in which Juan Williams says,
You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there's John McCain, working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn't have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post-partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn't have the record.
Ambinder's gloss on this:
You can bet that a big McCain talking point in the fall will be almost exactly as phrased ... by Juan Williams.
Er, Marc -- it was already phrased almost exactly this way -- by Karl Rove, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in February:
Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.
Juan Williams: Yes, that is Karl Rove's hand up his back, and those are Rove's hands moving his lips.
PAUL KRUGMAN'S DISHONESTY
Paul Begala (backing Clinton) and Donna Brazile (a Democratic superdelegate who's officially undeclared, though clearly not undecided) went at it on CNN on Tuesday night as election results came in. The exchange went on for some time. Some pro-Clinton bloggers quoted a brief excerpt of what she said, pointing to it as proof that she (and therefore Obama and Obama's supporters) feel contempt for the voters Hillary Clinton is winning -- ignoring the full context of what she said.
I expect that kind of selective quotation from some bloggers. Despite his utter contempt for Obama, I thought I could expect better from Paul Krugman.
Apparently not. Here's Krugman today:
On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that "we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics." That sort of thing has to stop.
Yes, that's what she said. A slightly longer version of this soundbite -- which made steam come out of some people's ears -- is this:
BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Did she say that? Yes, she said that.
But here's what else she said:
BRAZILE: ...I was one of the first Democrats who were going to the white working-class neighborhoods, encouraging white Democrats not to forget their roots. I have drank more beers with "Joe Six Pack," "Jane Six Pack" and everybody else than most white Democrats that you're talking about.
... I'm saying that we need to not divide and polarize the Democratic Party as if the Democratic Party will rely simply on white, blue collar male-- you insult every black blue collar Democrat by saying that.
So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul, because you and I know both know we have been in more campaigns.
We know how Democrats win and to simply suggest that Hillary's coalition is better than Obama's, Obama's is better than Hillary's -- no. We have a big party, Paul....
****
BRAZILE: It's our party, Paul. Don't say my party. It's our party. Because it's time that we bring the party back together, Paul.
****
BRAZILE: When John McCain secured the Republican nomination, he had to do some homework and reaching out to the Bill Bennets. If Barack Obama secures the Democratic nomination, he will have to reach out to blue collar, white voters and neutralize Senator Clinton's advantage on the economy but --
****
BRAZILE: ... I think -- [Barack Obama] has to continue to do his homework and that's what he showed today in North Carolina, he must prove that in the races to come.
****
BRAZILE: No. It sounds like I am ready to unify my party. I'm ready to bring the party back together and I'm sick and tired of hearing people say my party, my party. This is the Democratic Party. We have stood through thick and thin and I'm sick of the divisions. That's all I'm saying.
I'm not saying that this is about -- I think Hillary is a fabulous candidate and she is doing a remarkable job in the closing days of this Campaign. But Barack Obama's also a great candidate and I respect John McCain's service. Now what does that make me?
She's not saying that the voters in Hillary Clinton's coalition are irrelevant. She's rebutting the argument that the voters in Barack Obama's coalition are invalid, while insisting that Obama needs to work toward winning Clinton's. She's talking about mending fences and making the coalition bigger.
What more do you want, Paul?
Paul Begala (backing Clinton) and Donna Brazile (a Democratic superdelegate who's officially undeclared, though clearly not undecided) went at it on CNN on Tuesday night as election results came in. The exchange went on for some time. Some pro-Clinton bloggers quoted a brief excerpt of what she said, pointing to it as proof that she (and therefore Obama and Obama's supporters) feel contempt for the voters Hillary Clinton is winning -- ignoring the full context of what she said.
I expect that kind of selective quotation from some bloggers. Despite his utter contempt for Obama, I thought I could expect better from Paul Krugman.
Apparently not. Here's Krugman today:
On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that "we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics." That sort of thing has to stop.
Yes, that's what she said. A slightly longer version of this soundbite -- which made steam come out of some people's ears -- is this:
BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Did she say that? Yes, she said that.
But here's what else she said:
BRAZILE: ...I was one of the first Democrats who were going to the white working-class neighborhoods, encouraging white Democrats not to forget their roots. I have drank more beers with "Joe Six Pack," "Jane Six Pack" and everybody else than most white Democrats that you're talking about.
... I'm saying that we need to not divide and polarize the Democratic Party as if the Democratic Party will rely simply on white, blue collar male-- you insult every black blue collar Democrat by saying that.
So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul, because you and I know both know we have been in more campaigns.
We know how Democrats win and to simply suggest that Hillary's coalition is better than Obama's, Obama's is better than Hillary's -- no. We have a big party, Paul....
****
BRAZILE: It's our party, Paul. Don't say my party. It's our party. Because it's time that we bring the party back together, Paul.
****
BRAZILE: When John McCain secured the Republican nomination, he had to do some homework and reaching out to the Bill Bennets. If Barack Obama secures the Democratic nomination, he will have to reach out to blue collar, white voters and neutralize Senator Clinton's advantage on the economy but --
****
BRAZILE: ... I think -- [Barack Obama] has to continue to do his homework and that's what he showed today in North Carolina, he must prove that in the races to come.
****
BRAZILE: No. It sounds like I am ready to unify my party. I'm ready to bring the party back together and I'm sick and tired of hearing people say my party, my party. This is the Democratic Party. We have stood through thick and thin and I'm sick of the divisions. That's all I'm saying.
I'm not saying that this is about -- I think Hillary is a fabulous candidate and she is doing a remarkable job in the closing days of this Campaign. But Barack Obama's also a great candidate and I respect John McCain's service. Now what does that make me?
She's not saying that the voters in Hillary Clinton's coalition are irrelevant. She's rebutting the argument that the voters in Barack Obama's coalition are invalid, while insisting that Obama needs to work toward winning Clinton's. She's talking about mending fences and making the coalition bigger.
What more do you want, Paul?
Thursday, May 08, 2008
ED KOCH: A FOX NEWS DEMOCRAT BEFORE THERE WAS A FOX NEWS
I was amused this morning to see that the Clinton campaign had sent Ed Koch out to do the latest attempted hit on Obama:
As Democrats coalesce around Sen. Barack Obama, one of Hillary Clinton's must outspoken supporters is not mincing words: the party is walking needlessly and unaware into a general election buzzsaw.
"I believe Obama probably will win [the Democratic nomination], although in politics you never ever can count anybody out," said former New York Mayor Ed Koch. "I think Hillary is doing a magnificent job and is a great candidate and if anybody can pull it out, she can. But my honest opinion is, it probably won't happen. And that he will be the candidate and that he will lose." ...
Yeah, Koch is a former mayor of ultra-mega-lefty New York City. Yeah, he's a lifelong Democrat.
But he's a special kind of Democrat.
First, let's talk about Ed Koch and race. Here's a Wall Street Journal article from the time of his last mayoral campaign, when he lost a primary, in a racially divided New York City, to David Dinkins, who would go on to become the city's only African-American mayor:
...In the final days of campaigning, the indefatigable mayor ... has been forced to explain why he has had such poor relations with many in the black community since he was first elected in 1977.
At a Manhattan synagogue late last week, Mr. Koch addressed the question by denying responsibility for the city's racial tensions and asking the audience whether they thought the death of [a] black youth [killed in a white Brooklyn neighborhood], Yusef Hawkins, would have been prevented had Mr. Dinkins been mayor. A few people shook their heads, no.
"That's what they're trying to convey." he said. "It bothers me that there is racial intolerance by whites against blacks, but it also exists by blacks against whites!"
It was vintage Koch to try to be conciliatory but to come across argumentative instead.
..."I don't think Ed is racist but I do think he is insensitive on matters of race," says Felix Rohatyn, the Lazard Freres & Co. investment banker who heads a board overseeing the city's finances.
... he dueled with black leaders over the closing of a Harlem hospital, over whether police had acted brutally against blacks, and over his well-publicized charge that Jews would be "crazy" to vote for Jesse Jackson as president.
"I think Ed saw back then that he could make political capital out of the backlash against the free-spending sixties," said Haskell Ward, a former state department official who served as Mr. Koch's first black deputy mayor until 1979. "He started using code words like attacking 'poverty pimps' and 'poverticians.' But what he was really doing was telling whites he could be tough with the black community." ...
Yeah -- around these parts, he gets the credit for the phrase "poverty pimps."
He's gone back and forth on race -- decades ago he marched for civil rights in the South, and he joined a multiracial coalition in protests against police brutality in the Giuliani era (though this may have been just a result of his distaste for Giuliani).
Koch may be a Democrat, but he's often quite comfortable with the GOP. He invited Ronald Reagan to City Hall in 1980 shortly before that year's presidential election. In 1981 he ran for reelection as a Republican and a Democrat. And in 2004 he endorsed George W. Bush and appeared with Dick Cheney a campaign rally in Florida:
"I would give my life" to protect Cheney, Koch told hundreds of cheering supporters.
"You can depend on him. You can depend on George Bush," the New York Democrat added.
Kerry, Cheney noted, is "a man who will say and do anything if he thinks it will advance his cause."
To give him his due, I'll note that in the summer of 2007 he gave up on the Iraq War -- but that was a few weeks after he wrote,
To those who believe that when America leaves Iraq, Islamic terrorists will be satisfied and stop fighting, I say this: Wake up. The hard truth is that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will continue their attacks on Americans everywhere, including our homeland. And they will use Iraq as the new base of their terrorist regime.
Oh -- but it was a couple of years after he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Go digure.
This is my favorite line from his current bloviations:
"I am shocked, without knowing the reason that it is happening, that none of the allegations with the respect of Wright, his former pastor, have had any impact on his polling," said Koch.
Yeah -- this is the guy who just knows Obama can't win -- but he can't figure out why Obama isn't losing already. It's not his theories that are wrong -- it's the damn facts that keep screwing them up!
I was amused this morning to see that the Clinton campaign had sent Ed Koch out to do the latest attempted hit on Obama:
As Democrats coalesce around Sen. Barack Obama, one of Hillary Clinton's must outspoken supporters is not mincing words: the party is walking needlessly and unaware into a general election buzzsaw.
"I believe Obama probably will win [the Democratic nomination], although in politics you never ever can count anybody out," said former New York Mayor Ed Koch. "I think Hillary is doing a magnificent job and is a great candidate and if anybody can pull it out, she can. But my honest opinion is, it probably won't happen. And that he will be the candidate and that he will lose." ...
Yeah, Koch is a former mayor of ultra-mega-lefty New York City. Yeah, he's a lifelong Democrat.
But he's a special kind of Democrat.
First, let's talk about Ed Koch and race. Here's a Wall Street Journal article from the time of his last mayoral campaign, when he lost a primary, in a racially divided New York City, to David Dinkins, who would go on to become the city's only African-American mayor:
...In the final days of campaigning, the indefatigable mayor ... has been forced to explain why he has had such poor relations with many in the black community since he was first elected in 1977.
At a Manhattan synagogue late last week, Mr. Koch addressed the question by denying responsibility for the city's racial tensions and asking the audience whether they thought the death of [a] black youth [killed in a white Brooklyn neighborhood], Yusef Hawkins, would have been prevented had Mr. Dinkins been mayor. A few people shook their heads, no.
"That's what they're trying to convey." he said. "It bothers me that there is racial intolerance by whites against blacks, but it also exists by blacks against whites!"
It was vintage Koch to try to be conciliatory but to come across argumentative instead.
..."I don't think Ed is racist but I do think he is insensitive on matters of race," says Felix Rohatyn, the Lazard Freres & Co. investment banker who heads a board overseeing the city's finances.
... he dueled with black leaders over the closing of a Harlem hospital, over whether police had acted brutally against blacks, and over his well-publicized charge that Jews would be "crazy" to vote for Jesse Jackson as president.
"I think Ed saw back then that he could make political capital out of the backlash against the free-spending sixties," said Haskell Ward, a former state department official who served as Mr. Koch's first black deputy mayor until 1979. "He started using code words like attacking 'poverty pimps' and 'poverticians.' But what he was really doing was telling whites he could be tough with the black community." ...
Yeah -- around these parts, he gets the credit for the phrase "poverty pimps."
He's gone back and forth on race -- decades ago he marched for civil rights in the South, and he joined a multiracial coalition in protests against police brutality in the Giuliani era (though this may have been just a result of his distaste for Giuliani).
Koch may be a Democrat, but he's often quite comfortable with the GOP. He invited Ronald Reagan to City Hall in 1980 shortly before that year's presidential election. In 1981 he ran for reelection as a Republican and a Democrat. And in 2004 he endorsed George W. Bush and appeared with Dick Cheney a campaign rally in Florida:
"I would give my life" to protect Cheney, Koch told hundreds of cheering supporters.
"You can depend on him. You can depend on George Bush," the New York Democrat added.
Kerry, Cheney noted, is "a man who will say and do anything if he thinks it will advance his cause."
To give him his due, I'll note that in the summer of 2007 he gave up on the Iraq War -- but that was a few weeks after he wrote,
To those who believe that when America leaves Iraq, Islamic terrorists will be satisfied and stop fighting, I say this: Wake up. The hard truth is that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will continue their attacks on Americans everywhere, including our homeland. And they will use Iraq as the new base of their terrorist regime.
Oh -- but it was a couple of years after he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Go digure.
This is my favorite line from his current bloviations:
"I am shocked, without knowing the reason that it is happening, that none of the allegations with the respect of Wright, his former pastor, have had any impact on his polling," said Koch.
Yeah -- this is the guy who just knows Obama can't win -- but he can't figure out why Obama isn't losing already. It's not his theories that are wrong -- it's the damn facts that keep screwing them up!
HE'S DEFENDING THEIR HONOR, WHICH IS MORE THAN THEY'VE EVER DONE
In my last post I mentioned what Thomas Edsall wrote about considerations that -- at least according to conventional wisdom -- might persuade Hillary Clinton to make nice:
...While Clinton currently has her eye focused on only one thing, the presidential nomination, if she loses -- as appears increasingly likely -- her stature in the Senate will depend, in part, on whether she is ultimately seen as helping or hurting Obama's chances in November.
That stature, in turn, will be crucial in determining her success if she decides to try to climb the Senate leadership ladder....
Is Edsall nuts? These are the same people who won't strip Joe Lieberman of a committee chairmanship even as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nominee. Edsall thinks they're going to have the self-respect to punish Hillary Clinton if they think she's hurt Obama's chances? That's absurd. I'm convinced she could take the nomination fight to the Supreme Court after the primaries are over, or even after the convention, and they'd still give her anything she wanted next year in the Senate -- hell, they'd probably be more inclined to give her what she wanted. They'd be afraid of her.
OK, maybe that's a bit hyperbolic -- but trust me, none of her colleagues are going to punish her. They're Democrats. If there's the risk of a real fight, they're going to be afraid to take their own side.
In my last post I mentioned what Thomas Edsall wrote about considerations that -- at least according to conventional wisdom -- might persuade Hillary Clinton to make nice:
...While Clinton currently has her eye focused on only one thing, the presidential nomination, if she loses -- as appears increasingly likely -- her stature in the Senate will depend, in part, on whether she is ultimately seen as helping or hurting Obama's chances in November.
That stature, in turn, will be crucial in determining her success if she decides to try to climb the Senate leadership ladder....
Is Edsall nuts? These are the same people who won't strip Joe Lieberman of a committee chairmanship even as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nominee. Edsall thinks they're going to have the self-respect to punish Hillary Clinton if they think she's hurt Obama's chances? That's absurd. I'm convinced she could take the nomination fight to the Supreme Court after the primaries are over, or even after the convention, and they'd still give her anything she wanted next year in the Senate -- hell, they'd probably be more inclined to give her what she wanted. They'd be afraid of her.
OK, maybe that's a bit hyperbolic -- but trust me, none of her colleagues are going to punish her. They're Democrats. If there's the risk of a real fight, they're going to be afraid to take their own side.
SHUT UP AND EAT YOUR CLINTONISM
I know I should join the pack and see cold, calculating naked race-baiting in the fact that Hillary Clinton said the following to a USA Today reporter, while her campaign gave the paper an audio version of the interview so we could all hear the clip:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
I just can't tell how calculated the race talk is. She used an automatic, empty campaign-trail phrase -- "hard-working Americans" -- and stuck it in the middle of yet another invocation of her better numbers among the white working class. I just don't know if she's really saying, or even thinking on a subconscious level, that "hard-working" = "white."
However, she sure as hell isn't trying very hard not to race-bait. She certainly isn't weighing her words in an effort to avoid saying things that might give racial offense.
Whatever the intent, she really, really wants us to hear this. She really wants to continue proclaiming that those who disagree with her are the enemies of the party.
****
That's what bothers the most about what she's doing now: the sense -- and I get it from everything she says these days -- that, as a Clinton, she knows how elections are won and you and I don't, she has an instinctive understanding of precisely what compromises and panders and nods and winks get you to 50.1% of the vote and you and I don't, and she's not going to stop doing this until the rest of us see reason and reject anyone who has a different game plan.
And as I noted yesterday, she's wrong about working-class whites -- exit polls from 1996 and 2000 show that Democrats do win elections, or at least popular-vote victories, with huge deficits among the very voters she's courting now. And she's probably wrong in her demographic analysis if an inspiring candidate really brings new voters into the Democratic electorate -- which should happen this year, and did happen in, er, 1992.
A Clinton soundbite I heard on NPR this morning: "We have to figure out who would be the stronger candidate, because, at the end of the day, that is what matters most." No, Hillary, it isn't. What matters most is to pick one of the two candidates who are running neck-and-neck with John McCain and get on with the business of winning by uniting behind that candidate.
But that's the Clinton message, from both Hill and Bill: We're going to freeze this process until you see reason. She says it smugly, he gets red-faced and self-righteous, but it's the same talking point: We have a monopoly on savvy and attention must be paid.
Thomas Edsall, Taegan Goddard, and others can talk all they want about what bribes might be offered if Hillary drops out (her campaign debt will be retired! some issue of hers will be addressed by Obama!), but the Clintons simply don't care. A month ago it was reliably reported that Hillary Clinton told Bill Richardson flat out that Obama can't win. Mark Penn said for the record that Obama can't win. This is the argument, and it's like a horrible late-night marital argument -- it isn't going to end until we admit the Clintons are right.
Or until we walk out the door.
I know I should join the pack and see cold, calculating naked race-baiting in the fact that Hillary Clinton said the following to a USA Today reporter, while her campaign gave the paper an audio version of the interview so we could all hear the clip:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
I just can't tell how calculated the race talk is. She used an automatic, empty campaign-trail phrase -- "hard-working Americans" -- and stuck it in the middle of yet another invocation of her better numbers among the white working class. I just don't know if she's really saying, or even thinking on a subconscious level, that "hard-working" = "white."
However, she sure as hell isn't trying very hard not to race-bait. She certainly isn't weighing her words in an effort to avoid saying things that might give racial offense.
Whatever the intent, she really, really wants us to hear this. She really wants to continue proclaiming that those who disagree with her are the enemies of the party.
****
That's what bothers the most about what she's doing now: the sense -- and I get it from everything she says these days -- that, as a Clinton, she knows how elections are won and you and I don't, she has an instinctive understanding of precisely what compromises and panders and nods and winks get you to 50.1% of the vote and you and I don't, and she's not going to stop doing this until the rest of us see reason and reject anyone who has a different game plan.
And as I noted yesterday, she's wrong about working-class whites -- exit polls from 1996 and 2000 show that Democrats do win elections, or at least popular-vote victories, with huge deficits among the very voters she's courting now. And she's probably wrong in her demographic analysis if an inspiring candidate really brings new voters into the Democratic electorate -- which should happen this year, and did happen in, er, 1992.
A Clinton soundbite I heard on NPR this morning: "We have to figure out who would be the stronger candidate, because, at the end of the day, that is what matters most." No, Hillary, it isn't. What matters most is to pick one of the two candidates who are running neck-and-neck with John McCain and get on with the business of winning by uniting behind that candidate.
But that's the Clinton message, from both Hill and Bill: We're going to freeze this process until you see reason. She says it smugly, he gets red-faced and self-righteous, but it's the same talking point: We have a monopoly on savvy and attention must be paid.
Thomas Edsall, Taegan Goddard, and others can talk all they want about what bribes might be offered if Hillary drops out (her campaign debt will be retired! some issue of hers will be addressed by Obama!), but the Clintons simply don't care. A month ago it was reliably reported that Hillary Clinton told Bill Richardson flat out that Obama can't win. Mark Penn said for the record that Obama can't win. This is the argument, and it's like a horrible late-night marital argument -- it isn't going to end until we admit the Clintons are right.
Or until we walk out the door.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
WHITE PEOPLE: ALL-IMPORTANT?
Just a reminder, since everyone seems to be forgetting:
According to CNN's 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall 49%-41%-8%, and he won 70% of the electoral votes.
In 2000 -- when Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes -- he lost white males to Bush by a whopping 60%-36%, according to CNN's exit poll. He lost men overall 53%-42%. He lost whites overall 54%-42%. He lost gun owners 61%-36%. He lost small-town voters 59%-38% and rural voters 59%-37%. He lost the Midwest overall 49%-48%.
I'm not saying these are goals to aspire to. I'm saying it's a myth that Democrats had Joe Sixpack in their back pockets until that snooty arugula-eater Barack Obama came along, and it's a myth that they suffer crushing defeats when bowlers and boilermaker-drinkers aren't on board.
*****
And while we're talking about voting blocs: Since it's now an article of faith that Barack Obama will lose every voting bloc to Republican John McCain that he lost to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton by essentially the same margin, shouldn't we extend that rule to Clinton as well? Following that logic, shouldn't we assume that she'll get less than 10% of the black vote against John McCain, just as she does against Obama?
Just a reminder, since everyone seems to be forgetting:
According to CNN's 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall 49%-41%-8%, and he won 70% of the electoral votes.
In 2000 -- when Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes -- he lost white males to Bush by a whopping 60%-36%, according to CNN's exit poll. He lost men overall 53%-42%. He lost whites overall 54%-42%. He lost gun owners 61%-36%. He lost small-town voters 59%-38% and rural voters 59%-37%. He lost the Midwest overall 49%-48%.
I'm not saying these are goals to aspire to. I'm saying it's a myth that Democrats had Joe Sixpack in their back pockets until that snooty arugula-eater Barack Obama came along, and it's a myth that they suffer crushing defeats when bowlers and boilermaker-drinkers aren't on board.
*****
And while we're talking about voting blocs: Since it's now an article of faith that Barack Obama will lose every voting bloc to Republican John McCain that he lost to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton by essentially the same margin, shouldn't we extend that rule to Clinton as well? Following that logic, shouldn't we assume that she'll get less than 10% of the black vote against John McCain, just as she does against Obama?
MAUREEN DOWD IS PAULA ABDUL
Did anyone at The New York Times even bother to read Maureen Dowd's latest column after the results from North Carolina and Indiana became clear last night, to determine whether it was consistent with empirical reality?
I can see that Dowd skimmed it, looking for spots where she could shoehorn in a couple of references to the contest -- there's a mention of Clinton's "squeaker win" in paragraph 3, for instance, and a quote from Obama's speech shoved so awkwardly into paragraph 13 that it ruins a transition -- but the whole thing was clearly written based on exit polls predicting a fairly even split, rather than a near-upset by Obama in Indiana and a thumpin' by him in North Carolina:
...[Clinton] showed again with her squeaker win in Indiana that for many white working-class men, she is The Man....
The Democratic race has been a scorpion and a butterfly in a bottle. Hillary tore Barry's wings off...
Wandering around Indiana, appearing in neighborhoods and at diners without any advance notice, talking to handfuls of people, Obama strived to seem less lofty and more mortal. Hounded by Hillary, Bill and Rev. Wright, he just looked sort of numb.
...he looked increasingly diaphanous, like anti-matter to Hillary's matter....
It's perfectly understandable that Dowd would have drafted this column before we knew the results, but couldn't she have revised it a bit more, so it read more like analysis and less like (really bad) clairvoyance?
A week ago, there was much consternation among American Idol lovers (i.e., apparently everyone in the nation except me -- I had to Google this) because judge Paula Abdul made an on-air reference in a live broadcast to a contestant's "second song" -- even though the contestant hadn't actually sung a second song yet. It later emerged that Abdul was referring to the song as it had been sung in rehearsal -- a violation of contest protocol, because rehearsals aren't supposed to be judged.
That's more or less what Dowd did in this column. She is Paula Abdul.
Did anyone at The New York Times even bother to read Maureen Dowd's latest column after the results from North Carolina and Indiana became clear last night, to determine whether it was consistent with empirical reality?
I can see that Dowd skimmed it, looking for spots where she could shoehorn in a couple of references to the contest -- there's a mention of Clinton's "squeaker win" in paragraph 3, for instance, and a quote from Obama's speech shoved so awkwardly into paragraph 13 that it ruins a transition -- but the whole thing was clearly written based on exit polls predicting a fairly even split, rather than a near-upset by Obama in Indiana and a thumpin' by him in North Carolina:
...[Clinton] showed again with her squeaker win in Indiana that for many white working-class men, she is The Man....
The Democratic race has been a scorpion and a butterfly in a bottle. Hillary tore Barry's wings off...
Wandering around Indiana, appearing in neighborhoods and at diners without any advance notice, talking to handfuls of people, Obama strived to seem less lofty and more mortal. Hounded by Hillary, Bill and Rev. Wright, he just looked sort of numb.
...he looked increasingly diaphanous, like anti-matter to Hillary's matter....
It's perfectly understandable that Dowd would have drafted this column before we knew the results, but couldn't she have revised it a bit more, so it read more like analysis and less like (really bad) clairvoyance?
A week ago, there was much consternation among American Idol lovers (i.e., apparently everyone in the nation except me -- I had to Google this) because judge Paula Abdul made an on-air reference in a live broadcast to a contestant's "second song" -- even though the contestant hadn't actually sung a second song yet. It later emerged that Abdul was referring to the song as it had been sung in rehearsal -- a violation of contest protocol, because rehearsals aren't supposed to be judged.
That's more or less what Dowd did in this column. She is Paula Abdul.
LIMBAUGH EFFECT? CLINTON PANDER EFFECT? OR DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post thinks there might have been a Limbaugh Effect in Indiana:
...Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said "neither candidate" shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton....
On a broader level, among the 17 percent of primary goers who said they would choose Sen. John McCain over Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election match-up, 41 percent of that group came from Clinton's own camp. In essence, roughly seven percent of Clinton support in Indiana (40 percent of 17 percent) said they would defect to the Republican should she end up the nominee....
(Emphasis mine.) And there's a similar result in North Carolina, according to CNN's exit poll -- roughly 7% of Clinton's supporters wouldn't vote for her in November versus McCain.
In fact, Clinton beat Obama, 48%-44%, among the 14% of North Carolina Democratic primary voters who said they'd vote for McCain over Clinton in the general election. You'd think Obama's voters would be the ones who reject her in November, but a plurality of her voters reject her.
Stein says:
The numbers suggest one of three things: A) Clinton's support in Indiana, while clearly there, is not entirely solid; B) a large swath of Indiana primary goers simply didn't like the nominees and thought of Clinton as the lesser of two evils; or C) Limbaugh's hatchet plan could be having political ripples.
Does it even matter? The fact is that a significant chunk of her voters aren't going to vote Democratic in the general election no matter what. What does this say about her as an electable nominee?
Is all this Limbaugh's doing? Is it Limbaugh, the GOP, and other Republican apparatchiks working in concert? Is it Hillary Clinton trying to run a Republican-style campaign?
Or is it all mixed up now -- is it just possible that some voters weren't even sure whether they were voting for Hillary Clinton as an act of anti-Democrat mischief or as a sincere act of Bubba/bowling tribal solidarity against Obama?
Whatever the explanation, it seems apparent that Barack Obama won both states yesterday among voters who won't vote for McCain. And maybe that ought to be what superdelegates are looking at.
*****
UPDATE: In comments, Danp handles the math better than I did (or Sam Stein, for that matter):
If 17% of all voters said they would vote for McCain in a Clinton/McCain matchup, and 41% of those voted for Clinton, then 7% (roughly) of ALL voters voted for Hillary AND would switch in the GE. Since Hillary only got 51% of ALL voters, that would mean that about 14% or her support came from these dittoheads. No?
And the same is true for North Carolina.
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post thinks there might have been a Limbaugh Effect in Indiana:
...Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said "neither candidate" shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton....
On a broader level, among the 17 percent of primary goers who said they would choose Sen. John McCain over Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election match-up, 41 percent of that group came from Clinton's own camp. In essence, roughly seven percent of Clinton support in Indiana (40 percent of 17 percent) said they would defect to the Republican should she end up the nominee....
(Emphasis mine.) And there's a similar result in North Carolina, according to CNN's exit poll -- roughly 7% of Clinton's supporters wouldn't vote for her in November versus McCain.
In fact, Clinton beat Obama, 48%-44%, among the 14% of North Carolina Democratic primary voters who said they'd vote for McCain over Clinton in the general election. You'd think Obama's voters would be the ones who reject her in November, but a plurality of her voters reject her.
Stein says:
The numbers suggest one of three things: A) Clinton's support in Indiana, while clearly there, is not entirely solid; B) a large swath of Indiana primary goers simply didn't like the nominees and thought of Clinton as the lesser of two evils; or C) Limbaugh's hatchet plan could be having political ripples.
Does it even matter? The fact is that a significant chunk of her voters aren't going to vote Democratic in the general election no matter what. What does this say about her as an electable nominee?
Is all this Limbaugh's doing? Is it Limbaugh, the GOP, and other Republican apparatchiks working in concert? Is it Hillary Clinton trying to run a Republican-style campaign?
Or is it all mixed up now -- is it just possible that some voters weren't even sure whether they were voting for Hillary Clinton as an act of anti-Democrat mischief or as a sincere act of Bubba/bowling tribal solidarity against Obama?
Whatever the explanation, it seems apparent that Barack Obama won both states yesterday among voters who won't vote for McCain. And maybe that ought to be what superdelegates are looking at.
*****
UPDATE: In comments, Danp handles the math better than I did (or Sam Stein, for that matter):
If 17% of all voters said they would vote for McCain in a Clinton/McCain matchup, and 41% of those voted for Clinton, then 7% (roughly) of ALL voters voted for Hillary AND would switch in the GE. Since Hillary only got 51% of ALL voters, that would mean that about 14% or her support came from these dittoheads. No?
And the same is true for North Carolina.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
A DIVIDED PARTY
So, er, how come McCain couldn't crack 80% in Indiana and couldn't crack 75% in North Carolina?
So, er, how come McCain couldn't crack 80% in Indiana and couldn't crack 75% in North Carolina?
SHE CAN'T GO ON, SHE'LL GO ON
A little while ago, the MSNBC guys were discussing whether there was any reason for Hillary Clinton to go on if (as seems likely now) she's been blown away in North Carolina and has eked out a win in Indiana. Then I switched to CNN and there was Lanny Davis still hitting the talking points (Obama said he'd win Indiana and he lost, nyah-nyah! We had a big night! Florida and Michigan! Did I mention Florida and Michigan?) and sounding like Baghdad Bob. So maybe some people think Clinton will throw in the towel, but I don't see it. She'll stay in it, and she'll gloat next Tuesday about a win in West Virginia that everyone already knows is coming. But if Obama is going to start looking like a winner, like a guy who can take a punch and stay on his feet, maybe Clinton's persistence is going to start seeming embarrassing rather than tenacious, and maybe her wins are going to get smaller as his get bigger. So maybe that's how this will end -- with a whimper.
*****
...Well, after Hillary spoke, Matthews and Olbermann described the speech as a first move toward ending the battle and achieving reconciliation. I guess there's something wrong with my hearing -- her determination to fight on, expressed up front, sounded sincere and heartfelt, while her talk about uniting around the nominee, left for the end, really seemed pro forma. But hey, I'm just a schmuck with a blog. Every savant I've heard since then agrees with Matthews and Olbermann, and sees a winding down in her affect, but I'm not so sure. We'll see.
A little while ago, the MSNBC guys were discussing whether there was any reason for Hillary Clinton to go on if (as seems likely now) she's been blown away in North Carolina and has eked out a win in Indiana. Then I switched to CNN and there was Lanny Davis still hitting the talking points (Obama said he'd win Indiana and he lost, nyah-nyah! We had a big night! Florida and Michigan! Did I mention Florida and Michigan?) and sounding like Baghdad Bob. So maybe some people think Clinton will throw in the towel, but I don't see it. She'll stay in it, and she'll gloat next Tuesday about a win in West Virginia that everyone already knows is coming. But if Obama is going to start looking like a winner, like a guy who can take a punch and stay on his feet, maybe Clinton's persistence is going to start seeming embarrassing rather than tenacious, and maybe her wins are going to get smaller as his get bigger. So maybe that's how this will end -- with a whimper.
*****
...Well, after Hillary spoke, Matthews and Olbermann described the speech as a first move toward ending the battle and achieving reconciliation. I guess there's something wrong with my hearing -- her determination to fight on, expressed up front, sounded sincere and heartfelt, while her talk about uniting around the nominee, left for the end, really seemed pro forma. But hey, I'm just a schmuck with a blog. Every savant I've heard since then agrees with Matthews and Olbermann, and sees a winding down in her affect, but I'm not so sure. We'll see.
A SIMPLE MAN
Anyone else find this a bit over the top?
Laura Bush: George Built Limestone Altar for Jenna's Wedding
President Bush has prepared one special wedding gift for daughter Jenna, Laura Bush revealed during a news conference on Monday.
"[It] was his idea to build this beautiful limestone altar," the First Lady told reporters of the now-permanent fixture at the family's Crawford, Texas ranch -- where their daughter will wed on May 10. "It's the same thing that our house is made of from a local quarry. And they're the ones that made it." ...
(Apparently this isn't a small item -- yesterday, on Good Morning America, the president described it as "a giant cross ... by our lake.")
I guess it's the permanence of the thing that creeps me out. After all, Bush is a guy who's regularly photographed backlit by what seem to be halos, as well as other Christian backdrops. And when he leaves office, I'm sure he expects, sooner or later, to be regarded as a sage -- and not just any sage, but a sage who speaks for the Almighty. (He does believe God works through him right now.)
Is it possible that this is partly a gift to himself -- that he assumes he'll someday hold forth about nefarious Democratic secular-humanist/elitist deeds, and his pronouncements will just so happen to take place at the ranch, where his backdrop will be this altar? And yet, heck, it was just something he had built for his daughter's wedding, so the press won't think it's odd at all that he's holding forth with his own personal cross in the background.
I wonder if Karl Rove is planning the entire wedding.
Anyone else find this a bit over the top?
Laura Bush: George Built Limestone Altar for Jenna's Wedding
President Bush has prepared one special wedding gift for daughter Jenna, Laura Bush revealed during a news conference on Monday.
"[It] was his idea to build this beautiful limestone altar," the First Lady told reporters of the now-permanent fixture at the family's Crawford, Texas ranch -- where their daughter will wed on May 10. "It's the same thing that our house is made of from a local quarry. And they're the ones that made it." ...
(Apparently this isn't a small item -- yesterday, on Good Morning America, the president described it as "a giant cross ... by our lake.")
I guess it's the permanence of the thing that creeps me out. After all, Bush is a guy who's regularly photographed backlit by what seem to be halos, as well as other Christian backdrops. And when he leaves office, I'm sure he expects, sooner or later, to be regarded as a sage -- and not just any sage, but a sage who speaks for the Almighty. (He does believe God works through him right now.)
Is it possible that this is partly a gift to himself -- that he assumes he'll someday hold forth about nefarious Democratic secular-humanist/elitist deeds, and his pronouncements will just so happen to take place at the ranch, where his backdrop will be this altar? And yet, heck, it was just something he had built for his daughter's wedding, so the press won't think it's odd at all that he's holding forth with his own personal cross in the background.
I wonder if Karl Rove is planning the entire wedding.
WHO'S JOHN McCAIN TALKING TO WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT JUDGES?
Regarding a McCain speech on judges, The Hill says:
McCain courts right wing
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a new push Tuesday to ingratiate himself with social conservatives....
Seeking to overcome the right’s persistent mistrust, McCain will speak Tuesday on the importance of nominating conservative jurists to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Er, OK -- except for one thing:
Conservatives ... are ... upset over his role in the bipartisan Gang of 14 senators who struck a deal in 2005 that was seen on the right to preserve Democrats’ power to filibuster judicial nominees.
So what was McCain saying ijust before delivering the speech?
McCain brought up the "Gang of 14" saga unprompted at a town hall here, in advance of a major speech on judicial appointments he is set to deliver tomorrow in Winston-Salem.
"I know what bipartisanship is," McCain said. "I am going to talk tomorrow again about our Gang of 14: seven Republicans, seven Democrats that got together rather than blow up the Senate, and we confirmed so many federal judges."
And then what was the speech about?
There is no mention of abortion, or of same-sex marriage, or of most any particular question that the court has had to decide (two exceptions: the Kelo decision and Newdow.) Instead, McCain casts himself as a defender of judicial nominee and the Democratic presidential candidates as advocates of "judicial activism." The only backdating McCain engages is in when he defends his votes in favor of justices Breyer and Ginsberg (they were qualified; no need to throw food at Democrats just for the sake of throwing food) and then the Gang of 14 (which resulted in the confirmation of Roberts and Alito).
So it sounds as if he isn't courting the right wing. Or he's courting the right wing in a very odd way, by invoking the Gang of 14 (which they hate even though it helped accomplish a right-wing goal), and by invoking Breyer and Ginsberg (whom they also presumably hate), and by not throwing right-wingers all the red meat they crave.
No, he's not talking to conservatives. And he's not really talking to swing voters. (Judicial nominations? If there's such a thing as a "cold-button issue" for swing voters, one that really doesn't motivate them at all, this is it.)
He's talking (of course) to his base -- the press. He wants the press to ask Barack Obama, "If you're so darn post-partisan, why weren't you in the Gang of 14 like that nice bipartisan maverick John McCain?" He's not expecting voters to care about the issue per se -- he's expecting them to react to, say, Tim Russert calling Obama a big liberal phony.
I'm not sure he'll get the public reaction he's hoping for -- but I do think the press will do just what he wants, like an obedient dog.
Regarding a McCain speech on judges, The Hill says:
McCain courts right wing
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a new push Tuesday to ingratiate himself with social conservatives....
Seeking to overcome the right’s persistent mistrust, McCain will speak Tuesday on the importance of nominating conservative jurists to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Er, OK -- except for one thing:
Conservatives ... are ... upset over his role in the bipartisan Gang of 14 senators who struck a deal in 2005 that was seen on the right to preserve Democrats’ power to filibuster judicial nominees.
So what was McCain saying ijust before delivering the speech?
McCain brought up the "Gang of 14" saga unprompted at a town hall here, in advance of a major speech on judicial appointments he is set to deliver tomorrow in Winston-Salem.
"I know what bipartisanship is," McCain said. "I am going to talk tomorrow again about our Gang of 14: seven Republicans, seven Democrats that got together rather than blow up the Senate, and we confirmed so many federal judges."
And then what was the speech about?
There is no mention of abortion, or of same-sex marriage, or of most any particular question that the court has had to decide (two exceptions: the Kelo decision and Newdow.) Instead, McCain casts himself as a defender of judicial nominee and the Democratic presidential candidates as advocates of "judicial activism." The only backdating McCain engages is in when he defends his votes in favor of justices Breyer and Ginsberg (they were qualified; no need to throw food at Democrats just for the sake of throwing food) and then the Gang of 14 (which resulted in the confirmation of Roberts and Alito).
So it sounds as if he isn't courting the right wing. Or he's courting the right wing in a very odd way, by invoking the Gang of 14 (which they hate even though it helped accomplish a right-wing goal), and by invoking Breyer and Ginsberg (whom they also presumably hate), and by not throwing right-wingers all the red meat they crave.
No, he's not talking to conservatives. And he's not really talking to swing voters. (Judicial nominations? If there's such a thing as a "cold-button issue" for swing voters, one that really doesn't motivate them at all, this is it.)
He's talking (of course) to his base -- the press. He wants the press to ask Barack Obama, "If you're so darn post-partisan, why weren't you in the Gang of 14 like that nice bipartisan maverick John McCain?" He's not expecting voters to care about the issue per se -- he's expecting them to react to, say, Tim Russert calling Obama a big liberal phony.
I'm not sure he'll get the public reaction he's hoping for -- but I do think the press will do just what he wants, like an obedient dog.
IT'S NOT SHAMELESSNESS IF YOU HAVE "AN ANCIENT SENSE OF HONOR"
David Brooks today, writing about Hillary Clinton's ABC interview on Sunday:
... For the first 30 minutes, she did not utter a single candid word, including, as Mary McCarthy would say, "and" and "the."
She peddled her sham gas-tax holiday.... Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists."
...This ... was shamelessness....
Er, would that be the same gas-tax holiday that was first proposed on the campaign trail by John McCain -- a man about whom Brooks says,
He fights fiercely, though not always successfully, against political pressures in order to remain honest, brave and forthright.
And of whom he's also written the following?
... Telling the truth is a skill. Those who don’t do it habitually lose the ability, but McCain is well-practiced and has the capacity to face unpleasant truths....
There have been occasions when McCain compromised his principles for political gain, but he was so bad at it that it always backfired. More often, he is driven by an ancient sense of honor, which is different from fame and consists of the desire to be worthy of the esteem of posterity.
... character is destiny, and you will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men...
Just checking.
David Brooks today, writing about Hillary Clinton's ABC interview on Sunday:
... For the first 30 minutes, she did not utter a single candid word, including, as Mary McCarthy would say, "and" and "the."
She peddled her sham gas-tax holiday.... Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists."
...This ... was shamelessness....
Er, would that be the same gas-tax holiday that was first proposed on the campaign trail by John McCain -- a man about whom Brooks says,
He fights fiercely, though not always successfully, against political pressures in order to remain honest, brave and forthright.
And of whom he's also written the following?
... Telling the truth is a skill. Those who don’t do it habitually lose the ability, but McCain is well-practiced and has the capacity to face unpleasant truths....
There have been occasions when McCain compromised his principles for political gain, but he was so bad at it that it always backfired. More often, he is driven by an ancient sense of honor, which is different from fame and consists of the desire to be worthy of the esteem of posterity.
... character is destiny, and you will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men...
Just checking.
Monday, May 05, 2008
COULD JINDAL BE McCAIN'S REVEREND WRIGHT?
In a rational country, the answer to that question would be yes.
At a moment when the Louisiana governor is being talked about as a possible McCain running mate, we all need to know what was reported here when he was running for governor in 2007:
...Mr. Jindal supports teaching creationism. In September 2003, the Associated Press reported his answering "yes" on the Louisiana Family Forum's voter guide as to whether he favored teaching the "scientific weaknesses of evolution" (creationist codetalk) in public schools.... When a reporter asked his position on teaching creationism, Mr. Jindal's response clearly favored undermining the teaching of evolution: "With evolution there are flaws and gaps. I think it's appropriate to tell our students that no scientific theory can prove evolution." ("Sharp questions put candidates at governor’s forum on spot," Associated Press, September 25, 2003) ...
Among Jindal's most troubling allies is Republican Religious Right operative David Barton, who calls church/state separation "a myth." Barton, who runs an organization called Wallbuilders, has used bogus quotations by the Founding Fathers to support his contention in books and videos that American government was founded on Christianity....
Journalist Frederick Clarkson reported in October 2006 that Jindal and Barton visited Baptist churches in Alexandria, Bossier City, and West Monroe. Describing these visits on Barton’s Wallbuilders Live! radio program a few days later (October 18 & 19, 2006), Jindal praised Barton's pseudo-history: "Dave did a fantastic job, went to three churches with us, just reminding us of our nation's history [and] heritage." Barton, calling Jindal a "product of what we were able to put in office in 2004" because of the "huge increase in Christian voter turnout," praised Jindal's desire to "make a difference in the culture war." ...
A heartbeat away?
In a rational country, the answer to that question would be yes.
At a moment when the Louisiana governor is being talked about as a possible McCain running mate, we all need to know what was reported here when he was running for governor in 2007:
...Mr. Jindal supports teaching creationism. In September 2003, the Associated Press reported his answering "yes" on the Louisiana Family Forum's voter guide as to whether he favored teaching the "scientific weaknesses of evolution" (creationist codetalk) in public schools.... When a reporter asked his position on teaching creationism, Mr. Jindal's response clearly favored undermining the teaching of evolution: "With evolution there are flaws and gaps. I think it's appropriate to tell our students that no scientific theory can prove evolution." ("Sharp questions put candidates at governor’s forum on spot," Associated Press, September 25, 2003) ...
Among Jindal's most troubling allies is Republican Religious Right operative David Barton, who calls church/state separation "a myth." Barton, who runs an organization called Wallbuilders, has used bogus quotations by the Founding Fathers to support his contention in books and videos that American government was founded on Christianity....
Journalist Frederick Clarkson reported in October 2006 that Jindal and Barton visited Baptist churches in Alexandria, Bossier City, and West Monroe. Describing these visits on Barton’s Wallbuilders Live! radio program a few days later (October 18 & 19, 2006), Jindal praised Barton's pseudo-history: "Dave did a fantastic job, went to three churches with us, just reminding us of our nation's history [and] heritage." Barton, calling Jindal a "product of what we were able to put in office in 2004" because of the "huge increase in Christian voter turnout," praised Jindal's desire to "make a difference in the culture war." ...
A heartbeat away?
OUR BROWN PEOPLE ARE POLITE AND DOCILE
What's the subject of William Kristol's column in today's New York Times?
Wrong.
Kristol didn't write the column to talk about the possibility of a John McCain/Bobby Jindal ticket. Kristol wrote the column because the GOP Prime Directive right now (and probably until November) is to find fresh new ways to say JEREMIAH WRIGHT JEREMIAH WRIGHT JEREMIAH WRIGHT JEREMIAH WRIGHT as often as humanly possible.
* Number of times, in the text of a column ostensibly about Jindal, that Jindal's name is mentioned: 5.
* Number of times Wright's name is mentioned: 10.
It's really hard to imagine that Jindal will be McCain's running mate -- if you're going to go after the Democrat on brownness, apparent foreignness, youth, and relative inexperience, and if you have a guy at the top of the ticket who seems more likely than any nominee since Ronald Reagan to suffer health problems while in office, why the hell would you want a 36-year-old guy named Piyush Jindal as a running mate?
But mentioning Jindal -- that's different. Republicans will probably mention Jindal (and the much-mentioned Sarah Palin, Alaska's governor) as often as humanly possible between now and the day McCain picks someone else. They want to scare some voters by playing the race card (or gender card if Hillary nabs the nomination), but they fear that, to other voters, bitch and black might be the new straight white male.
In a race against Obama, the point of mentioning Jindal is to say: Look -- we have brown people, too, and ours are polite and well-behaved. No hanging out with scary rad preachers. No consorting with commies. Not like the brown people in some political parties we could mention.
And, yes, the 'pubs do want to point out that someone in their party is not pink-cheeked -- after all, as Frank Rich noted yesterday,
In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington.
Apart from Jindal and Condi Rice, what other marquee names do Republicans have? They've got a guy non-Republicans hate (Clarence Thomas) and a group of electoral losers (Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, J.C. Watts).
Oh yeah, I forgot: they've got 2000 prime-time convention speaker The Rock.
What's the subject of William Kristol's column in today's New York Times?
Wrong.
Kristol didn't write the column to talk about the possibility of a John McCain/Bobby Jindal ticket. Kristol wrote the column because the GOP Prime Directive right now (and probably until November) is to find fresh new ways to say JEREMIAH WRIGHT JEREMIAH WRIGHT JEREMIAH WRIGHT JEREMIAH WRIGHT as often as humanly possible.
* Number of times, in the text of a column ostensibly about Jindal, that Jindal's name is mentioned: 5.
* Number of times Wright's name is mentioned: 10.
It's really hard to imagine that Jindal will be McCain's running mate -- if you're going to go after the Democrat on brownness, apparent foreignness, youth, and relative inexperience, and if you have a guy at the top of the ticket who seems more likely than any nominee since Ronald Reagan to suffer health problems while in office, why the hell would you want a 36-year-old guy named Piyush Jindal as a running mate?
But mentioning Jindal -- that's different. Republicans will probably mention Jindal (and the much-mentioned Sarah Palin, Alaska's governor) as often as humanly possible between now and the day McCain picks someone else. They want to scare some voters by playing the race card (or gender card if Hillary nabs the nomination), but they fear that, to other voters, bitch and black might be the new straight white male.
In a race against Obama, the point of mentioning Jindal is to say: Look -- we have brown people, too, and ours are polite and well-behaved. No hanging out with scary rad preachers. No consorting with commies. Not like the brown people in some political parties we could mention.
And, yes, the 'pubs do want to point out that someone in their party is not pink-cheeked -- after all, as Frank Rich noted yesterday,
In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington.
Apart from Jindal and Condi Rice, what other marquee names do Republicans have? They've got a guy non-Republicans hate (Clarence Thomas) and a group of electoral losers (Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, J.C. Watts).
Oh yeah, I forgot: they've got 2000 prime-time convention speaker The Rock.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN
The Politico's Jonathan Martin reads articles about unsavory associates of John McCain (Gordon Liddy and John Hagee) and -- good concern troll that he is -- warns Democrats that they really, really shouldn't go there:
Steve Chapman in the Trib and Frank Rich in the Times today seek to balance the scale and find a political radical and radical preacher, respectively, to tie around McCain.
... the lesson from the '04 campaign seems to be to outswift the Swift boaters.
But such an offensive ignores what has made Obama so uniquely susceptible to the Wright-induced damage: He's a virtual unknown to the country. McCain, by contrast, is something approaching a household name. Voters may not know much beyond the basic sketches of his biography, but that is the point -- his personal identity is established.
And McCain wants to run on character. Given his life story and brand, it makes perfect politcal sense.
Yeah, kids, really -- don't even try to confuse voters with the facts. The brand is what matters. Facts are just facts, but the brand is reality.
Martin continues:
But there is another reason Republicans would welcome a chance to make this race about John Hagee vs. Jeremiah Wright: It diverts the focus from an incumbent president and party that have approval ratings south of the Mendoza line.
If Democrats, spurred by the emotion of the moment and fury at Wright, bite at the forbidden fruit of a character race instead of focusing on Bush, Cheney, a looming recession, an unpopular war, mortgage insecurity and $4-per-gallon gas, you'll have a good sense of why they have lost seven of the last 10 presidential races.
Right -- because no one ever won a presidential election by pursuing two lines of attack at once. Why, can you imagine if the Republicans had attacked John Kerry as a flip-flopper and as a traitor during the Vietnam War? Or if they'd attacked Dukakis on Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance? That would never have worked! Wisely, they pulled some of their punches. And that's what Democrats should do -- and Martin is really sincere when he says that.
The Politico's Jonathan Martin reads articles about unsavory associates of John McCain (Gordon Liddy and John Hagee) and -- good concern troll that he is -- warns Democrats that they really, really shouldn't go there:
Steve Chapman in the Trib and Frank Rich in the Times today seek to balance the scale and find a political radical and radical preacher, respectively, to tie around McCain.
... the lesson from the '04 campaign seems to be to outswift the Swift boaters.
But such an offensive ignores what has made Obama so uniquely susceptible to the Wright-induced damage: He's a virtual unknown to the country. McCain, by contrast, is something approaching a household name. Voters may not know much beyond the basic sketches of his biography, but that is the point -- his personal identity is established.
And McCain wants to run on character. Given his life story and brand, it makes perfect politcal sense.
Yeah, kids, really -- don't even try to confuse voters with the facts. The brand is what matters. Facts are just facts, but the brand is reality.
Martin continues:
But there is another reason Republicans would welcome a chance to make this race about John Hagee vs. Jeremiah Wright: It diverts the focus from an incumbent president and party that have approval ratings south of the Mendoza line.
If Democrats, spurred by the emotion of the moment and fury at Wright, bite at the forbidden fruit of a character race instead of focusing on Bush, Cheney, a looming recession, an unpopular war, mortgage insecurity and $4-per-gallon gas, you'll have a good sense of why they have lost seven of the last 10 presidential races.
Right -- because no one ever won a presidential election by pursuing two lines of attack at once. Why, can you imagine if the Republicans had attacked John Kerry as a flip-flopper and as a traitor during the Vietnam War? Or if they'd attacked Dukakis on Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance? That would never have worked! Wisely, they pulled some of their punches. And that's what Democrats should do -- and Martin is really sincere when he says that.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
A ROUND OF APPLAUSE (REALLY) FOR RALPH NADER
And, believe it or not, for William Safire, who writes this in his "On Language" column in The New York Times today:
One independent candidate bugged by a voguish euphemism is Ralph Nader, who called me the other day to register a complaint about the unthinking, universal adoption of the word detainee. "You put somebody in jail for three years and still call him a detainee? What's wrong with prisoner?"
I've ragged on you for years, Ralph, but that's an excellent point. And Safire, who does take words seriously, seems to agree:
The famed consumer advocate has a point.... Whatever may be the legal meaning of detainee, first cited in 1928, the Latin root of detain is tenere, "to hold," and the verb means "to hold temporarily, usually in an emergency," a far cry from "imprison," which connotes longer or more severe confinement.
Thanks, Ralph -- and I mean that sincerely. I think George Orwell, somewhere in the afterlife, is also expressing gratitude.
And, believe it or not, for William Safire, who writes this in his "On Language" column in The New York Times today:
One independent candidate bugged by a voguish euphemism is Ralph Nader, who called me the other day to register a complaint about the unthinking, universal adoption of the word detainee. "You put somebody in jail for three years and still call him a detainee? What's wrong with prisoner?"
I've ragged on you for years, Ralph, but that's an excellent point. And Safire, who does take words seriously, seems to agree:
The famed consumer advocate has a point.... Whatever may be the legal meaning of detainee, first cited in 1928, the Latin root of detain is tenere, "to hold," and the verb means "to hold temporarily, usually in an emergency," a far cry from "imprison," which connotes longer or more severe confinement.
Thanks, Ralph -- and I mean that sincerely. I think George Orwell, somewhere in the afterlife, is also expressing gratitude.
1988 IS OVER (IF WE WANT IT)
New York Times today:
Sometimes, as Senator Barack Obama seemed to argue earlier this year, a flag pin is just a flag pin.
But it can never be that simple for anyone with direct experience of the 1988 presidential campaign. That year, the Republicans used the symbols of nationhood (notably, whether schoolchildren should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance) to bludgeon the Democrats, challenge their patriotism and utterly redefine their nominee, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts.
...Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has promised a different politics, one that rises above the fray and the distractions of wedge issues. As Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Salon, recently put it, "The entire Obama campaign is predicated on the belief that it is no longer 1988." ...
I don't think that's what Obama is saying. I think he's saying that it's always going to be 1988 -- until voters reject 1988-style campaigns.
I don't know if he really can win an election by rejection this kind of trash-wallowing, and I don't know if he'd be able to govern effectively afterward if he did win that way, but he's still standing, and I can't say categorically that he's wrong. It's rather, er, audacious of him to argue that he's the 1988 killer, but that's what he's arguing. But I'd say he knows that 1988 is still alive.
New York Times today:
Sometimes, as Senator Barack Obama seemed to argue earlier this year, a flag pin is just a flag pin.
But it can never be that simple for anyone with direct experience of the 1988 presidential campaign. That year, the Republicans used the symbols of nationhood (notably, whether schoolchildren should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance) to bludgeon the Democrats, challenge their patriotism and utterly redefine their nominee, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts.
...Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has promised a different politics, one that rises above the fray and the distractions of wedge issues. As Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Salon, recently put it, "The entire Obama campaign is predicated on the belief that it is no longer 1988." ...
I don't think that's what Obama is saying. I think he's saying that it's always going to be 1988 -- until voters reject 1988-style campaigns.
I don't know if he really can win an election by rejection this kind of trash-wallowing, and I don't know if he'd be able to govern effectively afterward if he did win that way, but he's still standing, and I can't say categorically that he's wrong. It's rather, er, audacious of him to argue that he's the 1988 killer, but that's what he's arguing. But I'd say he knows that 1988 is still alive.
HOW TO MAKE HAGEE McCAIN'S RUNNING MATE
In today's column, Frank Rich discusses a YouTube video in which the Reverend John Hagee points to an "image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts" and dubs her "the Great Whore," a representation of "the Roman Church," which, he says, drinks "the blood of the Jewish people." Rich notes that when John McCain was interviewed recently on ABC by George Stephanopoulos, he faced questions about Hagee, but no video clips (despite the recent ubiquity of Jeremiah Wright video excerpts):
I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full "Great Whore" glory. But Mr. McCain didn't have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee's videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright's.
Well, double standards happen -- but there might be a way to turn this around.
Is anyone working on a documentary that quotes Hagee's most shocking words and links him to McCain and other right-wing politicians (mostly Republicans, including several who've been mentioned as possible McCain running mates, but also Joe Lieberman)? This wouldn't be a short clip -- it would be a long-form documentary, something at least a half-hour long that can be broadcast on TV or shown in theaters and released on DVD.
I mention this because I remember Stolen Honor, a film made in 2004 (by Carlton Sherwood, a right-wing journalist and participant in the Pentagon's military propaganda program) that accused John Kerry of harming U.S. POWs in Vietnam with his denunciations of the war, and that was scheduled for broadcast by Sinclair stations just before the '04 election.
Even though it wasn't aired in full as scheduled, it received huge amounts of free media attention -- it was a documentary, a work, not just an online clip, so its release was seen as a big event.
Yes, I know -- there was no documentary about Wright. That's a double standard. But this might be a way to overcome that double standard. Brave New Films, maybe? Anyone?
In today's column, Frank Rich discusses a YouTube video in which the Reverend John Hagee points to an "image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts" and dubs her "the Great Whore," a representation of "the Roman Church," which, he says, drinks "the blood of the Jewish people." Rich notes that when John McCain was interviewed recently on ABC by George Stephanopoulos, he faced questions about Hagee, but no video clips (despite the recent ubiquity of Jeremiah Wright video excerpts):
I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full "Great Whore" glory. But Mr. McCain didn't have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee's videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright's.
Well, double standards happen -- but there might be a way to turn this around.
Is anyone working on a documentary that quotes Hagee's most shocking words and links him to McCain and other right-wing politicians (mostly Republicans, including several who've been mentioned as possible McCain running mates, but also Joe Lieberman)? This wouldn't be a short clip -- it would be a long-form documentary, something at least a half-hour long that can be broadcast on TV or shown in theaters and released on DVD.
I mention this because I remember Stolen Honor, a film made in 2004 (by Carlton Sherwood, a right-wing journalist and participant in the Pentagon's military propaganda program) that accused John Kerry of harming U.S. POWs in Vietnam with his denunciations of the war, and that was scheduled for broadcast by Sinclair stations just before the '04 election.
Even though it wasn't aired in full as scheduled, it received huge amounts of free media attention -- it was a documentary, a work, not just an online clip, so its release was seen as a big event.
Yes, I know -- there was no documentary about Wright. That's a double standard. But this might be a way to overcome that double standard. Brave New Films, maybe? Anyone?
IF ONLY THAT BOY HAD KNOWN HIS PLACE
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I was making my way through John Harwood's not-particularly-enlightening New York Times Week in Review article about the role of race in the Democratic contest and, after being informed that there wasn't much racial tension early in the contest, I read this sentence, which brought me up short:
But Mr. Obama's dominance among black voters, once believed loyal to the Clintons, heightened the focus on race.
In other words what? None of this would be a problem if that uppity Obama hadn't competed for voters who were demographically similar to himself?
Harwood doesn't exactly let the Clinton campaign off the hook, but his short-term memory seems to be failing him. Here's his next sentence:
Mr. Clinton, whose own campaigns were marked by racial bridge-building, helped that process along by likening Mr. Obama's victory in South Carolina, where African-Americans made up 55 percent of the vote, to Jesse Jackson's past success there.
Is Harwood implying that that was the first time, or the only time, the Clinton campaign could be accused of racial insensitivity? Oh, please -- race became a central issue in this contest well before South Carolinians voted, and quite a few remarks from the Clinton camp seemed racially tinged to Obama supporters. (Many of us joined the Obama camp at that time largely because of those comments.) Even Clinton supporters have to acknowledge that the friction focused on a series of remarks, not just one.
Come on, is it really that hard to get these facts right?
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I was making my way through John Harwood's not-particularly-enlightening New York Times Week in Review article about the role of race in the Democratic contest and, after being informed that there wasn't much racial tension early in the contest, I read this sentence, which brought me up short:
But Mr. Obama's dominance among black voters, once believed loyal to the Clintons, heightened the focus on race.
In other words what? None of this would be a problem if that uppity Obama hadn't competed for voters who were demographically similar to himself?
Harwood doesn't exactly let the Clinton campaign off the hook, but his short-term memory seems to be failing him. Here's his next sentence:
Mr. Clinton, whose own campaigns were marked by racial bridge-building, helped that process along by likening Mr. Obama's victory in South Carolina, where African-Americans made up 55 percent of the vote, to Jesse Jackson's past success there.
Is Harwood implying that that was the first time, or the only time, the Clinton campaign could be accused of racial insensitivity? Oh, please -- race became a central issue in this contest well before South Carolinians voted, and quite a few remarks from the Clinton camp seemed racially tinged to Obama supporters. (Many of us joined the Obama camp at that time largely because of those comments.) Even Clinton supporters have to acknowledge that the friction focused on a series of remarks, not just one.
Come on, is it really that hard to get these facts right?
Friday, May 02, 2008
BOB BARR, SPOILER FOR McCAIN? PROBABLY NOT
A story that ran in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer:
Is this man John McCain's worst nightmare?
Bob Barr, former GOP congressman from Georgia, is an all-but-announced presidential candidate -- as a Libertarian.
The possibility of a run by Barr has sent shudders through the mainstream of the Republican party.
Barr, who will probably not declare his intentions for several days, has already been labeled a "spoiler." ...
Republicans may have good cause to worry.
A run by Barr could be to John McCain "what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore -- ruinous," wrote George Will in Newsweek. Some party experts believe Barr could siphon off essential conservative votes from Sen. John McCain, about whom many rightward voters have been less than enthusiastic....
I don't see it.
First of all, Nader was a star. He was an aging star years past his prime, but he was a big enough name to get media attention, and a lot of people cast votes for him in part as a lifetime achievement award. Bob Barr had a brief moment in the spotlight, but, unlike Nader, he's never really been a star.
(You can become a star in the course of a campaign -- Barack Obama and Ron Paul did so this time around -- but there's no evidence that Barr has either Obama's charisma or Paul's Howard Beale mad-prophet appeal.)
Beyond that, you have to realize that most Nader voters in 2000 felt nostalgia for (or wished they hadn't been born too late to experience) the '60s days when lefties fought the system from the outside. The lost glory days for most right-wingers were when they saw themselves dominating the system -- led by Reagan, or by Gingrich in Congress, or maybe by Bush in his first term. Most right-wingers don't want to stick a thumb in the system's eye -- they want to be the system.
I could be wrong, but I'm not expecting much help from Barr. It's hard to imagine Barr going from right-wing college campus to right-wing college campus, packing halls and winning the enthusiastic backing of right-wing gospel and country music superstars. It's hard to imagine the press accusing McCain of violating his principles by refusing to debate Barr. It's hard to imagine the "liberal media" acting as an adjunct to the Democratic Party by lavishing attention on Barr, or Democrats being savvy enough to help fund his campaign.
****
Almost forgot to mention the most obvious difference between Nader '00 and Barr '08: Nader, for all his prattle about challenging "the two-party duopoly," was clearly targeting Al Gore, whom the press despised. The press, to say the least, does not despise John McCain.
A story that ran in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer:
Is this man John McCain's worst nightmare?
Bob Barr, former GOP congressman from Georgia, is an all-but-announced presidential candidate -- as a Libertarian.
The possibility of a run by Barr has sent shudders through the mainstream of the Republican party.
Barr, who will probably not declare his intentions for several days, has already been labeled a "spoiler." ...
Republicans may have good cause to worry.
A run by Barr could be to John McCain "what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore -- ruinous," wrote George Will in Newsweek. Some party experts believe Barr could siphon off essential conservative votes from Sen. John McCain, about whom many rightward voters have been less than enthusiastic....
I don't see it.
First of all, Nader was a star. He was an aging star years past his prime, but he was a big enough name to get media attention, and a lot of people cast votes for him in part as a lifetime achievement award. Bob Barr had a brief moment in the spotlight, but, unlike Nader, he's never really been a star.
(You can become a star in the course of a campaign -- Barack Obama and Ron Paul did so this time around -- but there's no evidence that Barr has either Obama's charisma or Paul's Howard Beale mad-prophet appeal.)
Beyond that, you have to realize that most Nader voters in 2000 felt nostalgia for (or wished they hadn't been born too late to experience) the '60s days when lefties fought the system from the outside. The lost glory days for most right-wingers were when they saw themselves dominating the system -- led by Reagan, or by Gingrich in Congress, or maybe by Bush in his first term. Most right-wingers don't want to stick a thumb in the system's eye -- they want to be the system.
I could be wrong, but I'm not expecting much help from Barr. It's hard to imagine Barr going from right-wing college campus to right-wing college campus, packing halls and winning the enthusiastic backing of right-wing gospel and country music superstars. It's hard to imagine the press accusing McCain of violating his principles by refusing to debate Barr. It's hard to imagine the "liberal media" acting as an adjunct to the Democratic Party by lavishing attention on Barr, or Democrats being savvy enough to help fund his campaign.
****
Almost forgot to mention the most obvious difference between Nader '00 and Barr '08: Nader, for all his prattle about challenging "the two-party duopoly," was clearly targeting Al Gore, whom the press despised. The press, to say the least, does not despise John McCain.
IF REVEREND WRIGHT WERE WHITE...
Ezra Klein thinks the Reverend Wright brouhaha is about left-wing politics, not race. I think it's about both in combination, but I agree with him that a white (Democratic) candidate with a white pastor saying similar things would be catching hell right now:
...here's the thought experiment: If in 2004, it turned out that John Kerry's minister of 20 years -- a man who had been like a father to him, who had married Kerry and Theresa Heinz, and who figured heavily into Kerry's autobiographical book -- held the same opinions as Wright, how big of a deal would it be? My sense, as we're seeing with the furor over Obama's laughably casual relationship with Bill Ayers, is it would still be a firestorm. Americans recoil from the Chomskyite critique, and any Democratic candidate whose personal relationships implied a sympathy for that worldview would have a tough time of it. In fact, it looks like this is the narrative Wright is really fitting into -- a narrative that ranges from Ayers to lapel pins to Obama not holding his hand on his heart during the national anthem -- rather than a story of racial strife....
I'll say it again: It's not either/or. With Obama, it's a racial story and a commie/hippie/America-hater story. But it would be a big deal if it were just a commie/hippie/America-hater story. I'm old enough to have dim memories of the Berrigans and other activist anti-war members of the clergy, and someone with that background who went on to counsel a Democratic presidential candidate would certainly be as easy to slot into a 1960s-script Two Minutes' Hate as Jane Fonda is (or as William Ayers is).
****
While we're on the subject, I want to make note of a Hagee story that didn't get enough attention this week. It's from Talk to Action, and it points out that Hagee actually did say that God damns America -- or, at least, that God curses America:
"As a nation, America is under the curse of God, even now." That ominous slam at America came from Pastor John Hagee....
Hagee's pronouncement of God's "curse" and "doom" on our nation was not a passing comment. It was a major theme of Hagee's book, Day of Deception (1997). In fact, Hagee devotes a whole chapter to it. Here's the curse and doom quote in context:
In "America Under a Curse," a seventeen page chapter in Day of Deception, John Hagee wrote, "As a nation, America is under the curse of God, even now. Look at the scriptures and see for yourself. The stand we have taken on abortion, the stand we have taken against God in our classrooms, just may have sealed or doom."
... In a later book, Hagee has described a terrible, permanent divine curse upon Jews for worshipping idols....
As a consequence of America's disobedience and rebellion, according to McCain-endorser John Hagee, God's has cursed America and that curse has caused American military defeats, in Korea and Vietnam, plagues such as AIDS and social blights like violent crime. God's curse on America has also led "hundreds of thousands" to secretly sacrifice children to the devil....
Sounds a bit like the most famous quote of 2008. But don't worry -- it's a similar sentiment expressed from a right-wing point of view, so you'll never hear about it again.
Ezra Klein thinks the Reverend Wright brouhaha is about left-wing politics, not race. I think it's about both in combination, but I agree with him that a white (Democratic) candidate with a white pastor saying similar things would be catching hell right now:
...here's the thought experiment: If in 2004, it turned out that John Kerry's minister of 20 years -- a man who had been like a father to him, who had married Kerry and Theresa Heinz, and who figured heavily into Kerry's autobiographical book -- held the same opinions as Wright, how big of a deal would it be? My sense, as we're seeing with the furor over Obama's laughably casual relationship with Bill Ayers, is it would still be a firestorm. Americans recoil from the Chomskyite critique, and any Democratic candidate whose personal relationships implied a sympathy for that worldview would have a tough time of it. In fact, it looks like this is the narrative Wright is really fitting into -- a narrative that ranges from Ayers to lapel pins to Obama not holding his hand on his heart during the national anthem -- rather than a story of racial strife....
I'll say it again: It's not either/or. With Obama, it's a racial story and a commie/hippie/America-hater story. But it would be a big deal if it were just a commie/hippie/America-hater story. I'm old enough to have dim memories of the Berrigans and other activist anti-war members of the clergy, and someone with that background who went on to counsel a Democratic presidential candidate would certainly be as easy to slot into a 1960s-script Two Minutes' Hate as Jane Fonda is (or as William Ayers is).
****
While we're on the subject, I want to make note of a Hagee story that didn't get enough attention this week. It's from Talk to Action, and it points out that Hagee actually did say that God damns America -- or, at least, that God curses America:
"As a nation, America is under the curse of God, even now." That ominous slam at America came from Pastor John Hagee....
Hagee's pronouncement of God's "curse" and "doom" on our nation was not a passing comment. It was a major theme of Hagee's book, Day of Deception (1997). In fact, Hagee devotes a whole chapter to it. Here's the curse and doom quote in context:
In "America Under a Curse," a seventeen page chapter in Day of Deception, John Hagee wrote, "As a nation, America is under the curse of God, even now. Look at the scriptures and see for yourself. The stand we have taken on abortion, the stand we have taken against God in our classrooms, just may have sealed or doom."
... In a later book, Hagee has described a terrible, permanent divine curse upon Jews for worshipping idols....
As a consequence of America's disobedience and rebellion, according to McCain-endorser John Hagee, God's has cursed America and that curse has caused American military defeats, in Korea and Vietnam, plagues such as AIDS and social blights like violent crime. God's curse on America has also led "hundreds of thousands" to secretly sacrifice children to the devil....
Sounds a bit like the most famous quote of 2008. But don't worry -- it's a similar sentiment expressed from a right-wing point of view, so you'll never hear about it again.
MORE ABOUT YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA
Steve Benen noted yesterday that Ben Stein, the economist/GOP operative/actor/game-show host who narrates the new anti-evolution documentary Expelled, recently had this exchange in an interview with Paul Crouch Jr. of the Trinity Broadcasting Network:
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science -- in my opinion, this is just an opinion -- that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That's right.
Stein: ...Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
Steve says:
I vaguely recall the point, not too long ago, when Stein was considered something of a mainstream figure at the intersection of politics and entertainment. He'd show up on Fox News, and then make a cameo on "Married with Children."
I'd just like to point out, for those of you who aren't aware, that Stein's mainstream news presence isn't limited to Fox. Stein writes a regular column for the business section of the Sunday New York Times.
So if you're writing to the Times asking why, say, William Kristol has a job there, you might also want to ask why a guy who thinks scientific truth is evil gets a steady Times paycheck.
Steve Benen noted yesterday that Ben Stein, the economist/GOP operative/actor/game-show host who narrates the new anti-evolution documentary Expelled, recently had this exchange in an interview with Paul Crouch Jr. of the Trinity Broadcasting Network:
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science -- in my opinion, this is just an opinion -- that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That's right.
Stein: ...Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
Steve says:
I vaguely recall the point, not too long ago, when Stein was considered something of a mainstream figure at the intersection of politics and entertainment. He'd show up on Fox News, and then make a cameo on "Married with Children."
I'd just like to point out, for those of you who aren't aware, that Stein's mainstream news presence isn't limited to Fox. Stein writes a regular column for the business section of the Sunday New York Times.
So if you're writing to the Times asking why, say, William Kristol has a job there, you might also want to ask why a guy who thinks scientific truth is evil gets a steady Times paycheck.
DEAR MICKEY KANTOR HOAX-TAPE PRODUCER: I HATE YOU
I hope your identity is exposed and your pariah status is lifelong. I hope the rest of your life is filled with misery and pain. You're makingthe work of trying to put an end to Republican rule look like a project conducted exclusively by infantile idiots -- and we already looked bad enough. You disgust me.
Andyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about is fortunate. If you don't know what I'm talking about and you want to, read this.
I hope your identity is exposed and your pariah status is lifelong. I hope the rest of your life is filled with misery and pain. You're makingthe work of trying to put an end to Republican rule look like a project conducted exclusively by infantile idiots -- and we already looked bad enough. You disgust me.
Andyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about is fortunate. If you don't know what I'm talking about and you want to, read this.
NOONAN: OH, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THOSE NEGROES. THEY'RE JUST NOSTALGICALLY RECALLING THE LONG-AGO DAYS OF RACISM -- WHICH, AS WE ALL KNOW, HAS DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY.
In her latest column, Peggy Noonan, surprisingly, tells us Jeremiah Wright doesn't make her angry. What's going on here?
Well, first of all, she wants to remind you that she's quite an expert on race relations in this country:
I have been watching America up close for many years -- if you count a bright childhood, for half a century. I have seen, heard and respected the pain of a people who were forced to come here when they did not want to and made to live in a way that no one would want to. Who could deny them their grief or anger? I have seen radicalism and extremism, too. I have seen Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, the Black National Anthem, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Louis Farrakhan.
Wait a minute -- examples of "radicalism and extremism" include the Black National Anthem? You mean this?
Egad! Listen to that uplift, soaring lyricism, and stalwartness in the face of scorn and rebuke! Hide the babies, Muffy!
But Noonan's mid-century "extremists" (including James Weldon Johnson, who wrote the song above in 1900) were just being silly -- they didn't understand that white Americans are so nice and reasonable that we simply stop being hateful (eventually) if you just ask us politely. In fact, with regard to blacks, it's already happened -- there's no racism anymore.
I came to see their radicalism as, putting the morality of policy based on rage aside, essentially unhelpful and impractical. It wouldn't work as an American movement, not long-term. Hatred plays itself out, has power in the short-term but is nonsustaining in the long. America, and this is one of its glories, has a conscience to which an appeal can be made. It may take a long time, it may take centuries, but in the end we try hard to do the right thing, and everyone knows it. Hatred is a form of energy that does not fuel this machine and cannot make it run.
And all the time I was watching the old days of rage, blacks in America were rising, joining the professions, becoming middle class, assuming authority, becoming professors and doctors. No one is surprised anymore to meet a powerful man or woman who devises systems by which others should live -- that would be a politician -- who is black.
In fact, some of Noonan's best friends are black.
Now here's where I have to cut Noonan a bit of a break, because she's half-right about something. She explains that she's not angry at Reverend Wright because she knows that Irish-Americans, to this day, like to listen to the music of militant Irish nationalism.
My 20-year-old friend has lived a good life in America and is well aware that he is not an abused farmer in the fields holding secret Mass in defiance of the prohibitions of the English ruling class. His life has not been like that. Yet he enjoys the bitterness. He likes going to Wolfe Tones concerts raising his fist, thinking "Up the Rebels." It is good to feel that old ethnic religious solidarity, and that in part is what he is in search of, solidarity. And it's not so bad to take a little free-floating anger, apply it to politics, and express it in applause.
He knows the dark days are over. He just enjoys remembering them even if he didn't experience them. His people did.
I know exactly what he feels, for I felt the same when I was his age. And so what? It's just a way of saying, "I'm still loyal to our bitterness." Which is another way of saying, "I'm still loyal." I have a nice life, I'm American, I live far away, an Englishman has never hurt me, and yet I am still Irish. I can prove it. I can summon the old anger.
I give her a bit of credit because she may be the only right-winger in recent years who's ever acknowledged that white people feel ethnic solidarity, too. This needs to be remembered every time Michelle Malkin has to reach for the smelling salts because someone within our national borders has been photographed holding a Mexican flag.
But Noonan seems to accept ethnic expressions of solidarity and outrage only when they're strictly for show -- you'd better not be genuinely angry, or even disgruntled, now.
The thing is to not let your affiliation with bitterness govern you, so that you leave the Wolfe Tones concert and punch an Englishman in the nose. In this connection it can be noted there is no apparent record of people leaving a Wright sermon and punching anyone in the nose. Maybe they're in search of solidarity too. Maybe they're showing loyalty too.
A middle ground -- people feeling dissatisfaction about the present as well as the past and still not punching anyone in the nose -- seems unimaginable to her. But that's what you really have in the pews at Trinity United. And you have people who see more possibility than Wright seems to -- such as Barack Obama. But he doesn't see racism as strictly a phenomenon of the past. There's a middle ground between militancy and perfect contentment, but even Peggy Noonan, who doesn't share her right-wing crowd's anger at Wright, can't seem to imagine black people in that middle ground. Either they have to be movin' on up (with some harmless nostalgia for the angry past) or they have to be plotting to kill (or at least scare the bejeesus out of) us all.
In her latest column, Peggy Noonan, surprisingly, tells us Jeremiah Wright doesn't make her angry. What's going on here?
Well, first of all, she wants to remind you that she's quite an expert on race relations in this country:
I have been watching America up close for many years -- if you count a bright childhood, for half a century. I have seen, heard and respected the pain of a people who were forced to come here when they did not want to and made to live in a way that no one would want to. Who could deny them their grief or anger? I have seen radicalism and extremism, too. I have seen Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, the Black National Anthem, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Louis Farrakhan.
Wait a minute -- examples of "radicalism and extremism" include the Black National Anthem? You mean this?
Egad! Listen to that uplift, soaring lyricism, and stalwartness in the face of scorn and rebuke! Hide the babies, Muffy!
But Noonan's mid-century "extremists" (including James Weldon Johnson, who wrote the song above in 1900) were just being silly -- they didn't understand that white Americans are so nice and reasonable that we simply stop being hateful (eventually) if you just ask us politely. In fact, with regard to blacks, it's already happened -- there's no racism anymore.
I came to see their radicalism as, putting the morality of policy based on rage aside, essentially unhelpful and impractical. It wouldn't work as an American movement, not long-term. Hatred plays itself out, has power in the short-term but is nonsustaining in the long. America, and this is one of its glories, has a conscience to which an appeal can be made. It may take a long time, it may take centuries, but in the end we try hard to do the right thing, and everyone knows it. Hatred is a form of energy that does not fuel this machine and cannot make it run.
And all the time I was watching the old days of rage, blacks in America were rising, joining the professions, becoming middle class, assuming authority, becoming professors and doctors. No one is surprised anymore to meet a powerful man or woman who devises systems by which others should live -- that would be a politician -- who is black.
In fact, some of Noonan's best friends are black.
Now here's where I have to cut Noonan a bit of a break, because she's half-right about something. She explains that she's not angry at Reverend Wright because she knows that Irish-Americans, to this day, like to listen to the music of militant Irish nationalism.
My 20-year-old friend has lived a good life in America and is well aware that he is not an abused farmer in the fields holding secret Mass in defiance of the prohibitions of the English ruling class. His life has not been like that. Yet he enjoys the bitterness. He likes going to Wolfe Tones concerts raising his fist, thinking "Up the Rebels." It is good to feel that old ethnic religious solidarity, and that in part is what he is in search of, solidarity. And it's not so bad to take a little free-floating anger, apply it to politics, and express it in applause.
He knows the dark days are over. He just enjoys remembering them even if he didn't experience them. His people did.
I know exactly what he feels, for I felt the same when I was his age. And so what? It's just a way of saying, "I'm still loyal to our bitterness." Which is another way of saying, "I'm still loyal." I have a nice life, I'm American, I live far away, an Englishman has never hurt me, and yet I am still Irish. I can prove it. I can summon the old anger.
I give her a bit of credit because she may be the only right-winger in recent years who's ever acknowledged that white people feel ethnic solidarity, too. This needs to be remembered every time Michelle Malkin has to reach for the smelling salts because someone within our national borders has been photographed holding a Mexican flag.
But Noonan seems to accept ethnic expressions of solidarity and outrage only when they're strictly for show -- you'd better not be genuinely angry, or even disgruntled, now.
The thing is to not let your affiliation with bitterness govern you, so that you leave the Wolfe Tones concert and punch an Englishman in the nose. In this connection it can be noted there is no apparent record of people leaving a Wright sermon and punching anyone in the nose. Maybe they're in search of solidarity too. Maybe they're showing loyalty too.
A middle ground -- people feeling dissatisfaction about the present as well as the past and still not punching anyone in the nose -- seems unimaginable to her. But that's what you really have in the pews at Trinity United. And you have people who see more possibility than Wright seems to -- such as Barack Obama. But he doesn't see racism as strictly a phenomenon of the past. There's a middle ground between militancy and perfect contentment, but even Peggy Noonan, who doesn't share her right-wing crowd's anger at Wright, can't seem to imagine black people in that middle ground. Either they have to be movin' on up (with some harmless nostalgia for the angry past) or they have to be plotting to kill (or at least scare the bejeesus out of) us all.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
A TRIP DOWN EEEEUUWWW LANE
I can't let the fifth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" pass without recalling the most squirm-inducing op-ed written about that day, a Wall Street Journal piece by Lisa Schiffren that I've quoted here a couple of times before:
Hey, Flyboy
Women voters agree: President Bush is a hottie!
I had the most astonishing thought last Thursday. After a long day of hauling the kids to playdates and ballet, I turned on the news. And there was the president, landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stepping out of a fighter jet in that amazing uniform, looking--how to put it?--really hot. Also presidential, of course. Not to mention credible as commander in chief. But mostly "hot," as in virile, sexy and powerful.
You don't see a lot of that in my neighborhood, the Upper West Side of Manhattan. (I'm told there's more of it in the "red" states.) I was mesmerized. I flipped around watching W. land on many channels. I watched the whole speech, which was fine. But a business suit just doesn't do it the way a flight suit does....
It gets worse.
I decided to run a reality check among the soccer moms I spend my days with....
Alexandra, an unmarried event planner in her 30s, e-mailed: "Hot? SO HOT!!!!! THAT UNIFORM!" In a more restrained way, my friend Maggie, a writer/mom, explained: "I think he is actually protecting me and my sons, and I find that attractive in a man." Suzi, who did her mom time and now writes biographies, also began with restraint. I asked, casually, what she thought about President Bush. She answered, carefully, "He's so confident. He is a very credible, trustworthy leader." "Yeah," I pursue, "but do you think he's sexy?" "Oh God, yes," she said. "I mean, that swagger. George Bush in a pair of jeans is a treat to watch." ...
It goes on like that until Schiffren is literally imagining the First Couple in flagrante.
(Schiffren, of course, is the woman who recently told us that Obama's parents must have been commies because all the interracial couples she knew when she was a kid in Manhattan were commies. Her career highlights including writing speeches for both Rick Santorum and Dan Quayle; yes, she wrote the Murphy Brown speech.)
I can't let the fifth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" pass without recalling the most squirm-inducing op-ed written about that day, a Wall Street Journal piece by Lisa Schiffren that I've quoted here a couple of times before:
Hey, Flyboy
Women voters agree: President Bush is a hottie!
I had the most astonishing thought last Thursday. After a long day of hauling the kids to playdates and ballet, I turned on the news. And there was the president, landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stepping out of a fighter jet in that amazing uniform, looking--how to put it?--really hot. Also presidential, of course. Not to mention credible as commander in chief. But mostly "hot," as in virile, sexy and powerful.
You don't see a lot of that in my neighborhood, the Upper West Side of Manhattan. (I'm told there's more of it in the "red" states.) I was mesmerized. I flipped around watching W. land on many channels. I watched the whole speech, which was fine. But a business suit just doesn't do it the way a flight suit does....
It gets worse.
I decided to run a reality check among the soccer moms I spend my days with....
Alexandra, an unmarried event planner in her 30s, e-mailed: "Hot? SO HOT!!!!! THAT UNIFORM!" In a more restrained way, my friend Maggie, a writer/mom, explained: "I think he is actually protecting me and my sons, and I find that attractive in a man." Suzi, who did her mom time and now writes biographies, also began with restraint. I asked, casually, what she thought about President Bush. She answered, carefully, "He's so confident. He is a very credible, trustworthy leader." "Yeah," I pursue, "but do you think he's sexy?" "Oh God, yes," she said. "I mean, that swagger. George Bush in a pair of jeans is a treat to watch." ...
It goes on like that until Schiffren is literally imagining the First Couple in flagrante.
(Schiffren, of course, is the woman who recently told us that Obama's parents must have been commies because all the interracial couples she knew when she was a kid in Manhattan were commies. Her career highlights including writing speeches for both Rick Santorum and Dan Quayle; yes, she wrote the Murphy Brown speech.)
EARLY CHARACTER ASSASSINATION IS LIKE YEAST
An interesting point is being made over at Whiskey Fire:
This Rev Wright shit --
Does anyone really believe the GOP wanted to throw this bullshit against the wall in late fucking April?
...Look, it's a pretty good punch. But. There's no reason to throw a punch like that this early in the game... unless that's all you got.
And that's all they got....
Well, this isn't just coming from the GOP, or even the GOP plus media outlets transmitting GOP spin points. But I understand the basic argument: Why would the Republicans want to hit it this hard this early?
The answer is: Early deployment of trivia and character assassination worked four years ago.
The first press conference of the Swift Boat liars was in the first week in May. "News" articles about head liar John O'Neill began appearing in the right-wing press shortly before that. (Although I should note that the Swift Boat liars didn't run their first ad or publish their book until August.)
And what about "flip-flop"? That line of attack actually started in March:
One morning in mid-March, ... the Democratic candidate arrived in West Virginia to speak to an audience of veterans--only to find a new Bush ad airing in the state, criticizing Kerry for voting against the bill last year that provided $87 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq.... When reporters asked about the ad, Kerry coughed up a line that's haunted him ever since: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Within a few hours, McKinnon and his team had incorporated Kerry's reply into a new version of the ad, sent a blast e-mail on the subject to 6 million Bush supporters, and done as much as humanly possible to keep the story of Kerry's remark echoing for weeks to come.
The Bushies were capitalizing on a clumsy utterance that reinforced a point Bush had actually made a couple of weeks earlier:
On March 3 in Los Angeles, Bush said, "Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue."
Kerry provided Bush with ammunition two weeks later at a West Virginia town hall, which instantly made its way into a Bush campaign ad, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
The "flip flop'' charge reverberated through the Republican campaign for the next eight months right through Bush's final campaign rally in Texas with Bush saying, "And then he [Kerry] entered the flip-flop hall of fame."
The moral of the story: If you're flailing in the water in the spring, the Republicans don't wait till fall to throw in an anvil.
An interesting point is being made over at Whiskey Fire:
This Rev Wright shit --
Does anyone really believe the GOP wanted to throw this bullshit against the wall in late fucking April?
...Look, it's a pretty good punch. But. There's no reason to throw a punch like that this early in the game... unless that's all you got.
And that's all they got....
Well, this isn't just coming from the GOP, or even the GOP plus media outlets transmitting GOP spin points. But I understand the basic argument: Why would the Republicans want to hit it this hard this early?
The answer is: Early deployment of trivia and character assassination worked four years ago.
The first press conference of the Swift Boat liars was in the first week in May. "News" articles about head liar John O'Neill began appearing in the right-wing press shortly before that. (Although I should note that the Swift Boat liars didn't run their first ad or publish their book until August.)
And what about "flip-flop"? That line of attack actually started in March:
One morning in mid-March, ... the Democratic candidate arrived in West Virginia to speak to an audience of veterans--only to find a new Bush ad airing in the state, criticizing Kerry for voting against the bill last year that provided $87 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq.... When reporters asked about the ad, Kerry coughed up a line that's haunted him ever since: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Within a few hours, McKinnon and his team had incorporated Kerry's reply into a new version of the ad, sent a blast e-mail on the subject to 6 million Bush supporters, and done as much as humanly possible to keep the story of Kerry's remark echoing for weeks to come.
The Bushies were capitalizing on a clumsy utterance that reinforced a point Bush had actually made a couple of weeks earlier:
On March 3 in Los Angeles, Bush said, "Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue."
Kerry provided Bush with ammunition two weeks later at a West Virginia town hall, which instantly made its way into a Bush campaign ad, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
The "flip flop'' charge reverberated through the Republican campaign for the next eight months right through Bush's final campaign rally in Texas with Bush saying, "And then he [Kerry] entered the flip-flop hall of fame."
The moral of the story: If you're flailing in the water in the spring, the Republicans don't wait till fall to throw in an anvil.
MORE DAMN HORSERACE BLOGGING
OK, I realize I'm letting blog coverage of the presidential race make me stupid and horserace-obsessed, but here goes:
What I'm seeing today is a split -- public opinion seems to be going one way, superdelegates the other. Obama's picked up twice as many superdelegates as Clinton since the Pennsylvania primary, including former DNC chairman Joe Andrew (who was a Clinton delegate) and three newly announced names from Illinois. Yet public opinion polls are going Clinton's way: She outperforms Obama against McCain in new CBS and Rasmussen polls and does better than Obama against McCain in big swing states according to Quinnipiac. Moreover, Clinton's actually leading in one North Carolina poll, while Obama's taken a significant hit in another.
If she now has a real shot in both states that vote on Tuesday, while superdelegates such as Andrew abandon her, I could imagine her starting to run against the very superdelegates she's been courting -- describing them as just more hoity-toity elitists who don't want her beer-and-a-shot campaign to succeed.
I guess she'll need to tell the persuadable superdelegates privately that it's all just for show. But it's imaginable.
OK, I realize I'm letting blog coverage of the presidential race make me stupid and horserace-obsessed, but here goes:
What I'm seeing today is a split -- public opinion seems to be going one way, superdelegates the other. Obama's picked up twice as many superdelegates as Clinton since the Pennsylvania primary, including former DNC chairman Joe Andrew (who was a Clinton delegate) and three newly announced names from Illinois. Yet public opinion polls are going Clinton's way: She outperforms Obama against McCain in new CBS and Rasmussen polls and does better than Obama against McCain in big swing states according to Quinnipiac. Moreover, Clinton's actually leading in one North Carolina poll, while Obama's taken a significant hit in another.
If she now has a real shot in both states that vote on Tuesday, while superdelegates such as Andrew abandon her, I could imagine her starting to run against the very superdelegates she's been courting -- describing them as just more hoity-toity elitists who don't want her beer-and-a-shot campaign to succeed.
I guess she'll need to tell the persuadable superdelegates privately that it's all just for show. But it's imaginable.
EVERY SILVER LINING HAS A CLOUD
A lot of lefty bloggers are happy to read about one result in the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, and don't seem to be reading the rest of the results.
NBC/WSJ Poll: Bush a liability for McCain
A new poll says Bush -- not Wright or Bill Clinton -- is voters' main concern
Sen. Barack Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could hurt his presidential hopes. So could his comment about "bitter" small-town America clinging to guns and religion. And Americans might question Sen. Hillary Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness.
But according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the bigger problem appears to be John McCain's ties to President Bush.
In the survey, 43 percent of registered voters say they have major concerns that McCain is too closely aligned with the current administration....
This compares to 36% who have concerns about Hillary Clinton's flip-flops, 34% who are concerned about Obama's "bitter" remarks, and 32% who are concerned about Obama's ties to Wright and Ayers. (A fuller explanation of this aspect of the poll is below.)
The best thing about this is that it comes from the mainstream media, which means that it might penetrate the thick skulls of others in the media -- at least for a few days, reporters and editors might say, "Duh, maybe we should talk about this Bush-McCain thing a little bit before reverting to our 24/7 coverage of the Democratic soap opera."
****
But excitement about this needs to be tempered by a recognition of another set of results in the poll:
According to the survey, some voters also feel that McCain better reflects their values than the Democratic candidates.
Fifty-four percent of respondents in the survey said that they identify with McCain's background and his set of values, compared with 35 percent who didn't feel that connection.
...By contrast, Obama (45 vs. 46 percent) and Clinton (46 vs. 46 percent) received split scores on this question. Obama's score, in fact, is a significant drop from last month, when 50 percent of voters said they identified with his background and values, versus 39 percent who said they didn't....
Indeed, on this background/values question, Obama's score fell among small-town/rural voters (from 46-43 percent to 31-61 percent), suburban voters (56-32 percent to 49-40 percent) and those 65 and older (52-37 percent to 36-47 percent).
Ouch -- that hurts, especially that huge drop among older voters.
On that "shared background" question, McCain has dropped a mere 3 points in a month (57-32 in March, 54-35 now). Obama's dropped a lot, as noted above (50-39 to 45-46). Clinton's reversed a deficit, but she's still no better than neutral (43-52 in March, 46-46 now).
This is the real "have a beer" question -- this is voters talking about comfort and familiarity and their perceptions (delusions?) about standing on common ground with the candidates. This, I fear, is how America really votes. We had one Democrat, Obama, who had achieved the impossible: He was running even with a Republican on "normal."
And now neither Democrat is running even remotely close to McCain on "normal."
****
Just to explain: The poll (results in this PDF) asks voters about three presumably troublesome facts about each candidate. McCain comes in at 1 (Bush), 5 (flip-flops), and 9 (age). Obama's at 3 ("bitter" remarks), 4 (association with Wright and Ayers), and 8 (flag pin). Clinton's at 2 (flip-flops), 6 (Tuzla honesty), and 7 (presence of Bill).
A lot of lefty bloggers are happy to read about one result in the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, and don't seem to be reading the rest of the results.
NBC/WSJ Poll: Bush a liability for McCain
A new poll says Bush -- not Wright or Bill Clinton -- is voters' main concern
Sen. Barack Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could hurt his presidential hopes. So could his comment about "bitter" small-town America clinging to guns and religion. And Americans might question Sen. Hillary Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness.
But according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the bigger problem appears to be John McCain's ties to President Bush.
In the survey, 43 percent of registered voters say they have major concerns that McCain is too closely aligned with the current administration....
This compares to 36% who have concerns about Hillary Clinton's flip-flops, 34% who are concerned about Obama's "bitter" remarks, and 32% who are concerned about Obama's ties to Wright and Ayers. (A fuller explanation of this aspect of the poll is below.)
The best thing about this is that it comes from the mainstream media, which means that it might penetrate the thick skulls of others in the media -- at least for a few days, reporters and editors might say, "Duh, maybe we should talk about this Bush-McCain thing a little bit before reverting to our 24/7 coverage of the Democratic soap opera."
****
But excitement about this needs to be tempered by a recognition of another set of results in the poll:
According to the survey, some voters also feel that McCain better reflects their values than the Democratic candidates.
Fifty-four percent of respondents in the survey said that they identify with McCain's background and his set of values, compared with 35 percent who didn't feel that connection.
...By contrast, Obama (45 vs. 46 percent) and Clinton (46 vs. 46 percent) received split scores on this question. Obama's score, in fact, is a significant drop from last month, when 50 percent of voters said they identified with his background and values, versus 39 percent who said they didn't....
Indeed, on this background/values question, Obama's score fell among small-town/rural voters (from 46-43 percent to 31-61 percent), suburban voters (56-32 percent to 49-40 percent) and those 65 and older (52-37 percent to 36-47 percent).
Ouch -- that hurts, especially that huge drop among older voters.
On that "shared background" question, McCain has dropped a mere 3 points in a month (57-32 in March, 54-35 now). Obama's dropped a lot, as noted above (50-39 to 45-46). Clinton's reversed a deficit, but she's still no better than neutral (43-52 in March, 46-46 now).
This is the real "have a beer" question -- this is voters talking about comfort and familiarity and their perceptions (delusions?) about standing on common ground with the candidates. This, I fear, is how America really votes. We had one Democrat, Obama, who had achieved the impossible: He was running even with a Republican on "normal."
And now neither Democrat is running even remotely close to McCain on "normal."
****
Just to explain: The poll (results in this PDF) asks voters about three presumably troublesome facts about each candidate. McCain comes in at 1 (Bush), 5 (flip-flops), and 9 (age). Obama's at 3 ("bitter" remarks), 4 (association with Wright and Ayers), and 8 (flag pin). Clinton's at 2 (flip-flops), 6 (Tuzla honesty), and 7 (presence of Bill).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)